'iu^<rC^<LcJu  >lm(^*^^ 


la 

LIBRARY 

OP  THE 

Thee 

logical    Seminary, 

PRINCETON,    N.  J. 

Case, 
Shelf, 

- -D-ivjsmn 

Section , 

Book., 

No.™ 

SC<^ 

3S^ 

'.9 


J7^   c^fV 


•  r.\ 


THE 


WORKS 


OF  THE 


/ 

IN  TEZff  VOLVMES. 


VOLUME   IX. 


CONTAINING, 

THE    DOCTRINE    OF    ORIGINAL    SIN,    AND    TRACTS   ON 
VARIOUS    SUBJECTS    OF    POLEMICAL    DIVINITY. 


FIRST  AMERICAN  EDITION. 


Keto*¥orfe: 


PRINTED  AND  SOLD  BY  J.  &  J.  HARPER, 

NO.  327  FEARL-STREET. 

1827. 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Arciiive 

in  2011  witii  funding  from 

Princeton  Tiieoiogicai  Seminary  Library 


Iittp://www.arcliive.org/details/worksofrevjolinwe09wesl 


CONTENTS  OF  VOLUME  IX. 


PAGE 


X.  Jl  Letter  to  the  Rev.  Dr.  Conyers  Middleton,  occasion- 
ed by  his  late  "  Free  Inquiry"       ....       1 
II.  t4  Letter  to  Dr.  fVarburton,  Bishop  of  Gloucester^  oc- 
casioned  by  his  Tract  "  On  the  Office  and  Operations 

of  the  Holy  Spirit"^ C7 

in.  ^  Letter  to  a  Person  lately  joined  with  the  People  call- 
ed Quakers,  in  answer  to  a  Letter  written  by  him        110 
IV.  t^n  Extract  of  a  Letter  to  the  Rev.  JMr.  Law,  occa- 
sioned by  some  of  his  fVritings     .         .         .         .118 

V.  t5  Letter  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Toogood,  of  Exeter;  occa- 
sioned by  his  "  Dissent  from  the  Church  of  England 
fully  justified"  .  .          .  .  .  .151 

Vi.   A  Treatise  on  Baptism  .  .  .  .  .155 

VH.   The  Doctrine  of  Original  Sin,  according  to  Scripture, 

Reason,  and  Experience — The  Preface  .         .166 

Part  I.  Section  1.     The  Past  State  of  Mankind  co7i- 

sidered  .         .  .         .         .         .  .168 

Sect.  2.     The  Present  State  of  Mankind  investigated  178 
Part  II.  Skct.  1.     The  Scriptural  Method  of  account- 
ing for  the  total  Degeneracy  of  the  Human  Race     .  200 
Sect.  2.    The  Scriptvjres  examined  which  support  the 
Doctrine  of  Original  Sin     .  .         .  .  .218 

Sect.  3    Dr.  Taylor'* s  Answer  to  some  Objections  and 
Questions,  examined  •         .         .         .  .239 

Part  III.   Jin  Answer  to  Dr.  Taylor's  Supplement        .  259 
Sect.  1,   Of  imputed  Guilt  ....  260 

Sect.  2.   Of  the  J^ature  and  Design  of  our  Afflictions 

and  Mortality 262 

Sect.  3.    The  Arguments  taken  from  the  Calamities 

and  Sinfulness  of  Mankind,  considered          .          .  264 
Sect.  4.   Some  Consequences  of  the  Doctrine  of  Ori- 
ginal Sin 269 

Sect.  5.  A  general  Argument  taken  from  God's  decla- 
rations concerning  Mankind  after  the  Deluge  .  270 
Sect.  6.    The  Doctrine  of  Adam^s  being  a  Federal 

Head,  or  Representative  of  Mankind,  considered     .  273 
Sect.  7.    Of  the  Formation  of  our  J^ature  in  the 

Womb 275 

Sect.  8.   Of  Original  Righteousness       .         .         .  278 
Part  IV.  Extracts  from  Dr.  Watts  and  Mr.  Hebdcn     .  289 


r  CONTENTS. 

An  *Rnswer  to  Question  1,  "Is  Man,  in  his  present  cir- 
cumstanceSf  such  a  Creature  as  he  came  out  of  the 
hands  of  his  Creator .?"      .         .         .         .         .292 

Question  2,  "  How  came  Vice  and  Misery  to  overspread 

Mankind  in  all  JVations  and  Ages  ?"  .         .  308 

Sect.  1.  A  general  Survey  of  the  Follies  and  Mise- 
ries of  Mankind         .         .         .         .         .         .312 

Sect.  2.  A  particular  View  of  the  Miseries  of  Man    313 
Sect.  3.   Objections  answered  .         .         .316 

Sect.  4.   The  Apostacy  of  Man  proved  by  Scripture 
and  Reason       .......  318 

A  plain  Explication  of  the  Doctrine  of  Imputed  Sin 
and  Imputed  Righteousness  .... 

Part  V.  Ecclesiastes  vii  29,  illustrated 

Genesis  ii.  16,  \1,  ditto       ..... 

John  iii.  5,  6,  ditto     ...... 

The  Scripture  Doctrine  of  Imputed  Sin  and  Righteous- 
ness ........  333 

Part  VI.   The  Doctrine  of  Original  Sin  explained  and 

vindicated  .......  338 

Part  VII.  Extract  from  Mr.  Boston's  Four-fold  State 

of  Man 352 

VIII.   Predestination  calmly  considered      ....  377 
IX.   The    Scripture    Doctrine   concerning   Predestination, 

Election,  and  Reprobation  ....  420 

X.  A  Dialogue  between  a  Predesiinarian  and  his  Friend      430 

XI.    The  Consequence  Proved        .         .  .  .         .435 

XII.   Serious  Thoughts  upon  the  Perseverance  of  the  Saints  439 

XIII.  Thoughts  upon  the  Imputed  Righteousness  of  Christ      460 

XIV.  A  Blow  at  the  Root ;  or,  Christ  Stabbed  in  the  House 

of  his  Friends  ......  453 

XV.   Thoughts  upon  JSTecessity        .....  457 

XVI.   Thoughts  upon  God^s  Sovereignty  .         .  .471 

XVII.   The  Question,  "  fVhat  is  an  Arminian  ?^^  answered     .  473 
XVIII.  Some  Remarks  on  Mr.  Hill's  Review  of  all  the  Doc- 
trines taught  by  Mr.  John  Wesley         .         .         .  47C 
XIX.   Some  Thoughts  on  Mr,  HilVs  Farrago  double-distilled  507 
XX.  A  Letter  to  a  Roman  Catholic        ,        .        .         .53! 


MISCELLANEOUS   WORKS. 

A  LETTER 

TO    THE 

HEY.  DR.  CONYERS  MIDDLETON, 

OCCASIONED    BY    HIS    LATE    FREE    INQUIRV. 


January  4,  1748-9. 
Rev.  Sir, 

1.  IN  your  late  Inquiry,  you  endeavour  to  prove,  first,  That  there 
were  no  mhacles  wrought  in  the  primitive  church;  secondly.  That 
all  the  primitive  Fathers  were  fools  or  knaves,  and  most  of  them  both 
one  and  the  other.  And  it  is  easy  to  observe,  the  whole  tenor  of 
your  argument  tends  to  prove,  thirdly,  That  no  miracles  were  wrought 
by  Christ  or  his  apostles ;  and,  fourthly.  That  those  too  were  fools 
or  knaves,  or  both. 

2.  I  am  not  agreed  with  you  on  any  of  these  heads.  ISIy  reasons 
1  shall  lay  before  you,  in  as  free  a  manner  (though  not  in  so  smooth 
or  laboured  language)  as  you  have  laid  yours  belbre  the  world. 

3.  But  I  have  neither  inciiuation  nor  leisure  to  foUov/  you  step  by 
step  through  three  hundred  and  seventy-three  quaito  pages.  I  shall 
therefore  set  aside  all  I  find  iu  your  work  which  does  not  touch  the 
merits  of  the  cause  :  and  likewise  contract  the  question  itself  to  the 
three  first  centuries.  For  1  have  no  more  to  do  with  the  writers  or 
miracles  of  the  fourth,  than  with  those  of  "the  fourteenth  century. 

4.  You  will  naturally  ask,  '  Why  do  you  stop  there  ?  What  reason 
can  you  give  for  this  1  If  you  allow  miracles  before  the  empire  be- 
came Christian,  why  not  afterwards  too  ?  I  answer,  because,  "After 
the  empire  became  Christian,"  (they  are  your  own  words,)  "  a  gene- 
ral corruption  both  of  faith  and  morals  infected  the  Christian  church : 
which  by  that  revolution,  as  St.  Jerome  says,  '  lost  as  much  of  its 
virtue,  as  it  had  gained  of  wealth  and  power,' "  (p.  123.)  And  tliis 
very  reason  St.  Chrysostom  himself  gave  in  the  words  you  have  af- 
terwards cited  ;  '  There  are  some  who  ask.  Why  are  not  miracles 
performed  still  ?  Why  are  there  no  persons  who  raise  the  dead,  and 
»5ure  diseases  V  To  which  he  replies,  '  That  it  was  owing  to  the 
want  of  faith,  and  virtue,  and  piety  in  those  times.' 

Vol.  9.— B 


b  A   lETTEE   TO   DB.    MIDDLETO:^. 

1.  You  begin  your  preface  by  observing,  that  "the  inquiry  wa* 
intended  to  have  been  published"  some  time  ago ;  but  upon  reflec- 
tion, you  resolved  to  "  give  out  first  some  sketch  of  what  you  were 
projecting:"  (preface,  p.  1)  and  accordingly,  "published  the  intro- 
ductory discourse"  by  itself,  though  "  foreseeing  it  would  encounter 
all  the  opposition  that  prejudice,  bigotry,  and  superstition,  are  ever 
prepared  to  give  to  all  inquiries"  (p.  2)  of  this  nature.  But  it  was 
your  "  comfort,  that  this  would  excite  candid  inquirers  to  weigh  the 
merit  and  consequences  of  it,"  p.  3. 

2.  The  consequences  of  it  are  tolerably  plain,  even  to  free  the 
good  people  of  England  from  all  that  "  prejudice,  bigotry,  and  su- 
perstition," vulgarly  called  Christianity.  But  it  is  not  so  plain,  that 
"  this  is  the  sole  expedient  which  can  secure  the  Protestant  religion 
against  the  efforts  of  Rome,"  (ibid.)  It  may  be  doubted,  whether 
Deism  is  the  sole  expedient  to  secure  us  against  Popery.  For  some 
are  of  opinion,  there  are  persons  in  the  world  who  are  neither  Deists 
nor  Papists. 

3.  You  open  the  cause  artfully  enough,  by  a  quotation  from  Mr, 
Locke,  (p.  4.)  But  we  are  agreed  to  build  our  faith  on  no  man's 
authority.     His  reasons  will  be  considered  in  their  place. 

"  Those  who  have  written  against  his  and  your  opinion,"  you  say, 
"  have  shown  great  eagerness,  but  little  knowledge  of  the  question  ; 
urged  by  the  hopes  of  honours,  and  prepared  to  fight  for  every  es- 
tabUshnient,  that  offers  such  pay  to  its  defenders,"  (p.  5.)  I  have 
not  read  one  of  these  :  yet  I  would  fain  believe,  that  neither  the  hope 
of  honour,  nor  the  desire  of  pay,  was  the  sole  or  indeed  the  main 
motive  that  urged  either  them  or  you  to  engage  in  writing. 

But  I  grant,  they  are  overseen,  if  they  argue  against  you,  by  citing 
*'  the  testimonies  of  the  ancient  Fathers  :"  (p.  6.)  seeing  they  might 
easily  perceive  you  pay  no  more  regard  to  these  than  to  the  evan- 
gelists or  apostles.  Neither  do  I  commend  them  if  they  "  insinuate 
jealousies  of  consequences  dangerous  to  Christianity,"  (ibid.)  Why 
they  should  insinuate  these,  I  cannot  conceive :  I  need  not  insinuate 
that  the  sun  shines  at  noonday.  You  have  "  opened  too  great  a 
glare  to  the  public,"  (p.  7,)  to  leave  them  any  room  for  such  insinu- 
ation. Though  (to  save  appearances)  you  gravely  declare  stilly 
"  Were  my  argument  allowed  to  be  true,  the  credit  of  the  gospel- 
miracles  could  not  in  any  degree  be  shaken  by  it,"  p.  6. 

4.  So  far  is  flourish.  Now  we  come  to  the  point.  "  The  pre- 
sent question,"  you  say,  "  depends  on  the  joint  credibility  of  the 
facts,  and  of  the  witnesses  who  attest  them,  especially  on  the  for- 
mer. For  if  the  facts  be  incredible,  no  testimony  can  alter  the  na- 
ture of  things,"  (p.  9.)  All  this  is  most  true.  You  go  on,  "The 
creoioility  of  facts  lies  open  to  the  trial  of  our  reason  and  senses. 
But  the  credibility  of  witnesses  depends  on  a  variety  of  principles 
wholly  concealed  from  us.  And  though  in  many  cases  it  may  rea- 
sonably be  presumed,  yet  in  none  can  it  be  certainly  known,"  (p. 
10.)  Sir,  will  you  retract  this  or  defend  it  1  If  you  defend,  and  can 
prove,  as  well  as  assert  it,  then  farewell  the  credit  of  all  history,  not 


A    LETTER    TO    DR.    MIDDLETON.  7 

only  sacred,  but  profane.  If  "  the  credibility  of  witnesses"  (of  all 
witnesses,  for  you  make  no  distinction)  depends,  as  you  peremptorily 
affirm,  on  a  variety  of  principles  "  wholly  concealed  from  us  :"  and 
consequently,  though  it  may  be  presumed  in  many  cases,  yet  can  be 
certainly  known  in  none  :  then  it  is  plain,  all  the  history  of  the  Bible 
is  utterly  precarious  and  uncertain  :  then  I  may  indeed  "  presume," 
but  cannot  "certainly  know,"  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  ever  was  born; 
much  less  that  he  healed  the  sick,  and  raised  either  Lazarus  or  him- 
self from  the  dead.  Now,  Sir,  go  and  declare  again,  how  careful 
you  are  for  "  the  credit  of  the  gospel-miracles  !" 

5.  But  for  fear  any,  considering  how  "  frank  and  open"  your  na- 
ture is,  and  how  "  warmly  disposed  to  speak  what  you  take  to  be 
true,"  (p.  7,)  should  fancy  you  meant  what  you  said  in  this  declara- 
tion, you  take  care  to  inform  them  soon  after :  "  The  whole  which 
the  wit  of  man  can  possibly  discover,  either  of  the  ways  or  will  of 
the  Creator,  must  be  acquired  by  attending  seriously,"  (To  what  ? 
To  the  Jewish  or  Christian  revelation  1  No  :  but)  "  to  that  revela- 
tion which  he  hath  made  of  himself  from  the  beginning,  in  the  beau- 
tiful fabric  of  this  visible  world."  p.  22. 

6.  I  believe  your  opponents  will  not  hereafter  urge  you,  either 
with  "  that  passage  from  St.  Mark,"  or  any  other  from  Scripture. 
At  least  I  will  not ;  unless  1  forget  myself,  as  I  observe  you  have 
done  just  now.  For  you  said  but  now,  "  Before  we  proceed  to  ex- 
amine testimonies  for  the  decision  of  this  dispute,  our  first  care  should 
be,  to  inform  ourselves  of  the  nature  of  those  miraculous  powers, 
which  are  the  subject  of  it,  as  they  are  represented  to  us  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  gospel."  (p.  10.)  Very  true  ;  "  This  should  be  our  first 
care."  I  was  therefore  all  attention  to  hear  your  account  of  "  the 
nature  of  those  powers,  as  they  are  represented  to  us  in  the  gospel." 
But  alas  !  You  say  not  a  word  more  about  it ;  but  slip  away  to  those 
*' zealous  champions  who  have  attempted"  (bold  men  as  they  are) 
*'to  refute  the  introductory  discourse," 

Perhaps  you  will  say,  "  Yes,  I  repeat  that  text  from  St.  Mark." 
lou  do;  yet  not  describing  the  nature  of  those  powers  ;  but  only  to 
open  the  way  to  "one  of  your  antagonists ;"  (p.  12)  of  whom  you 
yourself  atfirm,  that  "  not  one  of  them  seems  to  have  spent  a  thought 
in  considering  those  powers  as  they  are  set  forth  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment." (p.  11.)  Consequeiitly,  the  bare  repealing  that  text  does 
tiot  prove  you  (any  more  than  they)  to  have  "  spent  one  thought 
upon  the  subject." 

7.  From  this  antagonist  you  ramble  away  to  another;  (p.  13) 
alter  a  long  citation  from  whom,  you  siibjoin,  "It  being  agreed  then, 
that  in  the  original  promise  there  is  no  intimation  of  any  particular 
period  to  which  their  conrinuance  was  limited."  (p.  14.)  Sir,  you 
have  lost  your  way.  We  have  as  yet  nothing  to  do  with  their  "con- 
tinuance. For  till  we  have  learned  from  those  sacred  records"  (I 
use  your  own  words)  "  what  they  were,  and  in  what  manner  exerted 
by  the  apostles,  we  cannot  form  a  proper  judgment  of  those  evi- 
denees  which  are  brought  either  to  confirm  or  confute  their  eonti- 


8  i  LETl-ER  to  D2.  MIDDLETO?". 

nuance  in  the  church ;  and  must  consequently  dispute  at  randloffiv 
as  chance  ov  prejudice  may  prompt  us,  about  things  unknown  to 
us."  p.  15.  17. 

Now^  Sir,  if  this  be  true,  (as  without  doubt  it  is,)  then  it  necessa- 
rily follows,  that  seeing,  from  the  beginning  of  your  book  to  the  end, 
you  spend  not  one  page  to  inform  either  yourself  or  your  readers, 
concerning  the  nature  of  these  miraculous  powers,  "  as  they  are  re- 
presented to  us  in  the  history  of  the  gospel :"  you  "dispute"  through- 
out the  whole  "  at  random,  as  chance  or  prejudice  prompts  you^ 
about  things  unknown  to  you." 

8.  Your  reply  to  "the  adversaries .  of  your  scheme,"  (p.  11,)  I 
may  let  alone  for  the  present ;  and  the  rather,  because  the  argu- 
ments used  therein  will  occur  again  and  again.  Only  I  would  here 
take  notice  of  one  assertion,  "  that  the  miraculous  powers  conferred 
on  the  apostles  themselves  were  imparted  just  at  the  moment  of  their 
exertion,  and  withdrawn  again  as  soon  as  those  particular  occasions 
were  served."  (p.  23.)  You  should  not  have  asserted  this,  be  it  true 
or  false,  without  some  stronger  proof,  "  This,  I  say,  is  evident,'* 
(ibid.)  is  not  a  sufficient  proof;  nor,  "A  treatise  is  prepared  on  that 
siibject."  (p.  24.)  Nehher  is  it  proved  by  that  comment  of  Grotius* 
on  our  Lord's  promise,  which,  literally  translated,  runs  thus  :  "  To 
every  believer  there  was  then  given  some  wonderful  power,  which 
was  to  exert  itself,  not  indeed  always,  but  when  there  was  occa- 
sion." 

&.  But  waiving  this  :  I  grant  "  the  single  point  in  dispute  is,  Whe- 
ther the  testimony  of  the  Fathers  be  a  sufficient  ground  to  believe, 
that  miraculous  gifts  subsisted  at  all,  after  the  days  of  the  apostles  ?" 
(p.  27.)  But  v/ith  this  you  interweave  another  question,  Whether 
the  Fathers  were  not  all  fools  or  knaves  ]  In  treating  of  which  you 
strongly  intimate,  first,  That  such  gifts  did  never  subsist,  and,  se- 
condly. That  the  apostles  were  equally  wise  and  good,  with  the  won- 
der-icorkers  (your  favourite  term,)  that  followed  them. 

When  therefore  you  add,  "  My  opinion  is  this,  that  after  our 
Lord's  ascension,  the  extraordinary  gifts  he  had  promised  were 
poured  out  on  the  apostles,  and  the  other  primary  instruments  of 
planting  the  gospel ;  in  order  to  enable  them  to  overrule  the  invete- 
rate prejudices  both  of  the  Jcavs  and  Gentiles,  and  to  bear  up  against 
the  discouraging  shocks  of  popular  rage  and  persecution."  (p.  28.) 
I  look  upon  all  this  to  be  mere  grimace.  You  believe  not  one  word 
of  what  you  say.  You  cannot  possibly,  if  you  believe  what  you 
said  before.     For  who  can  believe  both  sides  of  a  contradiction  1 

10.  However,  I  will  suppose  you  do  believe  it,  and  will  argue  witli 
you  from  your  own  words.  But  first  let  us  have  a  few  more  oi' 
them.  (p.  28.)  "  In  process  of  time,  as  miraculous  powers  began 
to  be  less  and  less  wanted,  so  they  began  gradually  to  decline,  till 
they  were  finally  withdrawn,  (p.  29.)     And   this  may  probably  bo 

*  Grotius  in  Mar.  xvi.  17.  Non  omnibus  omnia — ita  tamen  cuilibet  credenti  tunc 
(lata  sU  admirabitis  facuUasj  quae  se,  non  semper  quidemj  sed  data  occasione  explicaret.. 


A  LETTER  TO  DR.  iSlIDDtETON. 

flioUght  to  have  happened  while  some  of  the  apostles  were  still 
living." 

These  were  given,  you  say,  to  the  first  planters  of  the  gospel,  "  in 
order  to  enable  them  to  overrule  the  inveterate  prejudices  both  of 
Jews  and  Gentiles,  and  to  bear  up  against  the  shocks  of  persecution." 
Thus  far  we  are  agreed.  They  were  given  for  these  ends.  But  if 
you  allow  this,  you  cannot  suppose,  consistently  with  yourself,  that 
they  were  withdrawn  till  these  ends  were  fully  answered.  So  long, 
therefore,  as  those  prejudices  subsisted,  and  Christians  were  exposed 
to  the  shocks  of  persecution,  you  cannot  deny  but  there  was  the 
same  occasion  for  those  powers  to  be  continued,  as  there  was  for 
their  being  given  at  first.  And  this,  you  say,  is  "  a  postulatum, 
which  all  people  will  grant,  that  they  continued  as  long  as  they  were 
necessary  to  the  church."  (p.  11.) 

11.  Now,  did  those  prejudices  cease,  or  was  persecution  at  an 
end,  while  some  of  the  Apostles  were  still  living  1  You  have  your- 
self abundantly  shown  they  did  not.  You  know,  there  was  as  sharp 
persecution  in  the  third  century,  as  there  was  in  the  first,  while  all 
the  Apostles  were  living.  And  with  regard  to  prejudices,  you  have 
industriously  remarked,  that  "  the  principal  writers  of  Rome,  who 
make  any  mention  of  the  Christians,  about  the  time  of  Trajan, 
speak  of  them  as  a  set  of  despicable,  stubborn,  and  even  wicked 
enthusiasts,"  (p.  193.)  "That  Suetonius  calls  them  '  a  race  of  men 
of  R  new  and  mischievous  superstition:' "  (p.  194.)  And  that  "Ta- 
citus, describing  the  horrible  tortures  which  they  suffered  under 
Nero,  says,  '  They  were  detested  for  their  flagitious  practices ;  pos- 
sessed with  an  abominable  superstition,  and  condemned  not  so  much 
for  their  supposed  crime  of  firing  the  city,  as  from  the  hatred  of  all 
mankind.'"  (p.  195.) 

And  "  their  condition,"  you  say,  "  continued  much  the  same,  till 
they  were  established  by  the  civil  power  :  during  all  which  time  they 
were  constantly  insulted  and  calumniated  by  their  heathen  adversa- 
ries, as  a  stupid,  credulous,  impious  sect,  the  very  scum  of  man- 
kind," (ibid.)  In  a  word,  both  with  regard  to  prejudice  and  perse- 
cution, I  read  in  your  following  page,  "  The  heathen  magistrates 
would  not  give  themselves  the  trouble  to  make  the  least  inquiry  into 
their  manners  or  doctrines  ;  but  condemned  them  for  the  mere  name, 
without  examination  or  trial :  treating  a  Christian  of  course  as  guilty 
of  every  crime,  as  an  enemy  of  the  gods,  emperors,  laws,  and  of  na- 
ture itself."  p.  196. 

12.  If  then  the  end  of  those  miraculous  powers  was  to  overcome 
inveterate  prejudices,  and  to  enable  the  Christians  to  bear  up  against 
the  shocks  ot  persecution  ;  how  can  you  possibly  conceive  that  those 
powers  should  cease,  while  some  of  the  apostles  were  living  1  With 
what  colour  can  you  assert,  that  they  were  less  wanted  for  these  ends, 
in  the  second  and  third,  than  in  the  apostolic  age  1  With  what  sha- 
dow of  reason  can  you  maintain,  that  (if  they  ever  subsisted  at  all) 
they  were  finally  withdrawn,  before  Christianity  was  established  by 
fhe  civil  power  ?     Then  indeed  these  ends  did  manifestly  cease ; 


to  A  LETTPEK  ISO  DB.  UIIDDBETOK. 

persecution  was  at  an  end  ;  and  the  inveterate  prejudices  which  sc* 
long  obtained  were  in  great  measure  rooted  up :  another  plain  rea- 
son why  the  powers,  which  were  to  balance  these,  should  remain  in 
the  church  so  long,  and  no  longer. 

13.  You  go  on  to  acquaint  us  with  the  excellencies  of  your  pei*- 
formance.  "  The  reader,"  you  say,  "  will  lind  in  these  sheets  none 
of  those  arts  which  are  commonly  employed  by  disputants  to  perplex 
a  good  cause,  or  to  palliate  a  bad  one  :  no  subtle  refinements,  forced 
constructions,  or  evasive  distinctions,  but  plain  reasoning  grounded 
on  plain  facts,  and  pubUshed  with  an  honest  and  disinterested  view, 
to  free  the  minds  of  men  from  an  inveterate  imposture,  I  have 
.shown  that  the  ancient  Fathers,  by  whom  that  delusion  was  imposed, 
were  extremely  credulous  and  superstitious:  possessed  with  strong 
prejudices,  and  scrupling  no  art  or  means  by  which  they  might  pro- 
pagate the  same."  (p.  31.)  Surely,  Sir,  you  add  the  latter  part  of 
this  paragraph  on  purpose  to  confute  the  former :  for  just  here  you 
use  one  of  the  unfairest  arts  which  the  most  dishonest  disputant  can 
employ :  in  endeavouring  to  forestall  the  judgment  of  the  reader, 
and  to  prejudice  him  against  those  men,  on  whom  he  ought  not  to 
pass  any  sentence,  before  he  has  heard  the  evidence. 

1.  In  the  beginning  of  your  iniroductory  discourse,  you  declare  the 
reasons  which  moved  you  to  publish  it.  "  One  of  these,"  you  say, 
■'  was  the  late  increase  of  Popery  in  this  kingdom;  chiefly  occasion- 
ed," as  you  suppose,  "  by  the  confident  assertions  of  the  Ronnsh 
emissaries,  that  there  has  been  a  succession  of  miracles  in  their  church 
from  the  apostoUc  to  the  present  age,"  (p.  41.)  To  obviate  this  plea, 
you  would  "  settle  some  rule  of  discerning  the  true  from  the  false; 
so  as  to  give  a  reason  for  admitting  the  miracles  of  one  age,  and  re- 
jecting those  of  another,"  p.  44. 

2.  This  has  a  pleasing  sound,  and  is  extremely  well  imagined  to 
prejudice  a  Protestant  reader  in  your  favour.  You  then  slide  with 
great  art  into  your  subject.  "This  claim  of  a  miraculous  power, 
now  peculiar  to  the  Church  of  Rome,  was  asserted  in  all  Christian 
countries  till  the  Reformation,"  (p.  44.)  "  But  then  the  cheat  was 
detected :  nay,  and  men  began  to  suspect,  that  the  church  had  long 
been  governed  by  the  same  arts,"  (p.  45. )  "For  it  was  easy  to  trace 
them  up  to  the  primitive  church,  though  not  to  fix  the  time  when  the 
cheat  began;  to  show,  how  long  after  the  days  of  the  apostles,  the 
miraculous  gifts  continued  in  the  church,"  (p.  46.)  Howevei,  it  is 
commonly  believed,  that  they  continued  till  Christianity  was  the  es- 
tablished religion.  Some  indeed  extend  them  to  the  fourth  and  fifth 
centuries :  (p.  50. )  but  these,  you  say,  betray  the  Protestant  cause ; 
"For  in  the  third,  fourth,  and  fifth,  the  chief  corruptions  of  Popery 
were  introduced,  at  least  the  seeds  of  them  sown."  "By  these  I 
mean  monkery;  the  worship  of  relics  ;  invocation  of  saints  ;  prayers 
for  the  dead;  the  superstitious  use  of  images  ;  of  the  sacraments;  of 
the  sign  of  the  cross,  and  of  the  consecrated  oil,"  p.  52. 

3.  I  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  fourth  or  fifth  century.     But  to 


A   LETTER  'TO  DE.  MIDDLETON  11 

what  you  allege  in  support  of  this  charge,  so  far  as  it  relates  to  the 
third  century,  I  have  a  few  things  to  reply. 

And,  first,  you  quote  not  one  line  from  any  Father  in  the  third 
century,  in  favour  of  "monkery,  the  worship  of  relics,  the  invoca- 
tion of  saints,  or  the  superstitious  use  either  of  images,  or  conse- 
crated oil."  How  is  this,  Sir  1  You  brought  eight  accusations  at  once 
against  the  Fathers  of  the  third,  as  well  as  the  following  centuries : 
and  as  to  five  of  the  eight,  when  we  call  for  the  proof,  you  have  not 
one  word  to  say  !  As  to  the  sixth,  "  In  the  sacrament  of  the  Eucha- 
rist, several  abuses  were  introduced."  (p.  57  )  You  instance,  first, 
in  mixing  wine  with  water.  But  how  does  it  appear,  that  this  was 
any  abuse  at  all  1  Or,  that  "  Iraeneus  declared  it  to  have  been  taught 
as  well  as  practised  by  our  Saviour  1"  (p.  57.)  The  words  you  quote 
to  prove  this,  do  not  prove  it  at  ail ;  they  simply  relate  a  matter  of 
fact :  "  Taking  the  bread  he  confessed  it  to  be  his  body,  and  the 
mixed  cup,  he  affirmed  it  was  his  blood."  (p.  58.)  You  cannot  be 
ignorant  of  this  fact,  that  the  cup  used  after  the  paschal  supper,  was 
always  mixed  with  water.  But  "  Cyprian  declared,  this  mixture  to 
have  been  enjoined  to  himself  by  a  divine  revelation."*  If  he  did, 
that  will  not  prove  it  to  be  an  abuse  :  so  that  you  are  wide  of  the 
point  still.  You  instance  next  in  their  sending  the  bread  to  the  sick; 
which  (as  well  as  the  mixture)  is  mentioned  by  Justin  Martyr.  This 
fact  likewise  we  allow :  but  you  have  not  proved  it  to  be  an  abuse, 
I  grant,  that  near  a  hundred  years  after,  some  began  to  have  a  su- 
perstitious regard  for  this  bread.  But,  that  in  "Tertullian's  daysit 
was  carried  home  and  locked  up  as  a  divine  treasure,"  I  call  upon 
you  to  prove  :  as  also,  that  infant-communion  was  an  abuse  ;  or  the 
styling  it  the  sacrifice  of  the  body  of  Christ,  (p.  59.)  I  beMeve 
"the  otTering  it  up  for  the  martyrs"  was  an  abuse  ;  and  that  this  with 
"  the  superstitious  use  of  the  sign  of  the  cross"  were,  if  not  the  earliest 
of  all,  yet  as  early  as  any  which  crept  into  the  Christian  church. 

4.  It  is  certain  "  praying  for  the  dead  was  common  in  the  second 
century,"  (p.  60  :)  you  might  have  said,  and  in  the  first  also  ;  seeing 
that  petition,  Thij  kingdom  come,  manifestly  concei'ns  the  saints  in 
Paradise,  as  well  as  tho^e  upon  earth.  But  it  is  far  from  certain, 
that  "  the  purpose  of  this  was,  to  procure  relief  and  refreshment  to 
the  departed  souls  in  some  intermediate  state  of  expiatory  pains  ;" 
or,  that  this  was  the  general  "  opinion  of  those  times." 

5.  As  to  the  "consecrated  oil,"  (p-  63,)  you  seem  entirely  to 
forget,  that  it  was  neither  St.  Jerome,  noi'  St.  Chrysostom,  but  St. 
James,  who  said,  'Is  any  sick  among  you  ?  Let  him  send  for  the 

.  elders  of  the  church.  And  let  them  pray  over  him,  anointing  him 
with  oil,  in  the  name  of  the  Lord.  And  the  prayer  of  faith  shall  save 
the  sick,  and  the  Lord  shall  raise  him  up,'  Ch.  v,  ver.  14,  15. 

The  sum  is  :  you  have  charged  the  Fathers  of  the  third  century 
with  eight  of  «  the  chief  corruptions  of  Popery  :"     1.  Monkery,  2. 

*  Accipiens  panem,  ouum  corpus  esse  confitebatur ;  et  temperameiituni  calicis,  suum 
sanguinem  confirmariN 


12  A  lETTEH   TO    DR.    MIDDLETON'. 

The  worship  of  relics,  3.  Invocation  of  saints,  4.  The  superstltioUii? 
use  of  images,  5.  Of  the  consecrated  oil,  6.  Of  the  sacraments,  7. 
Of  the  sign  of  the  cross,  8.  Praying  for  the  dead. 

And  what  is  all  this  heavy  charge  come  to  at  last  1  Why  just  thus 
much  :  some  of  them  in  the  beginning  of  the  third  century,  did  su- 
perstitiously  use  the  sign  of  the  cross  :  and  others  in  the  middle  of 
that  century  offered  up  the  eucharist  for  the  martyrs  on  their  annual 
festivals  ;  though  how  you  make  this,  "  the  superstitious  use  of  the 
sacraments,"  I  know  not,  or  how  these  come  to  be  the  '•  chief  cor- 
ruptions of  Popery."  Praying  thus  far  for  the  dead,  '  That  God 
would  shortly  accomplish  the  number  of  his  elect,  and  hasten  his 
kingdom,'  and  anointing  the  sick  with  oil,  you  will  not  easily  prove 
to  be  any  corruptions  at  all. 

As  to  monkery,  the  worship  of  reUcs,  invocation  of  saints,  and  the 
superstitious  use  of  images  ;  you  have  not  even  attempted  to  prove 
that  these  Fathers  were  guilty  :  so  that,  for  aught  appears,  you 
might  as  well  have  charged  them  on  the  apostles.  "  Yet  it  is  no 
more,"  you  solemnly  assure  us,  "  than  what  fact  and  truth  oblige 
us  to  say  !"  (p.  65.)  When  I  meet  with  any  of  these  assurances  for 
the  time  to  come,  I  shall  remember  to  stand  upon  my  guard. 

C.  In  the  following  pages  you  are  arguing  against  the  miracles  of 
the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries.  After  which  you  add,  "  But  if  these 
must  be  rejected,  where  then  are  we  to  stop  1  And  to  what  period 
must  we  confine  ourselves  ?  This  indeed  is  the  grand  difficulty,  and 
what  has  puzzled  all  the  other  doctors,  who  have  considered  the 
same  question  before  me,"  (p.  71.)  Sir,  your  memory  is  short.  In 
this  very  discourse  you  yourself  said  just  the  contrary.  You  told  us 
awhile  ago,  that  not  only  Dr.  Marshall,  Mr.  Dodwell,  and  Archbishop 
Tillotson,  but "  the  generahty  of  the  Protestant  doctors  were  agreed, 
to  what  period"  they  should  confine  themselves  :  believing,  that 
^'  miracles  subsisted  through  the  three  first  centuries,  and  ceased  in 
the  beginning  of  the  fourth,"  p.  46.  et  seq. 

7.  However,  that  none  of  them  may  ever  be  puzzled  any  more, 
you  will  "  lay  down  some  general  principles,  which  may  lead  us  to 
a  more  rational  solution  of  the  matter,  than  any  that  has  hitherto 
been  offered."  (ibid.)  Here  again  I  was  all  attention.  And  what 
did  the  mountain  bring  forth  ?  What  are  these  general  principles, 
preceded  by  so  solemn  a  declaration,  and  laid  down  for  thirteen 
pages  together?  (p.  71 — 84.)  Why,  they  are  dwindled  down  into 
one,  "  That  the  forged  miracles  of  the  fourth  century  taint  the  cre- 
dit of  all  the  later  miracles  !"  I  should  desire  you  to  prove,  that  the 
miracles  of  the  fourth  century  were  all  forged,  but  that  it  is  not  ma- 
terial to  our  question. 

8.  But  you  endeavour  to  show  it  is.  *'  For  that  surprising  confi- 
dence," you  say,  *'  with  which  the  Fathers  of  the  fourth  age  have 
affirmed  as  true  what  they  themselves  bad  forged,  or  at  least  knew  to 
be  forged,"  (a  little  more  proof  of  that,)  "makes  us  suspect,  that  so 
bold  a  defiance  of  truth  could  not  become  general  at  once,  but  must 
have  been  carried  gradually  to  that  height  by  custom  and  the  exam« 


A  iiK^rrjER  TO  Dit.  jii»»leto:n.  lo 

pie  of  former  times,"  (p.  84.)  It  does  not  appear  that  it  did  become 
general  till  long  after  the  fourth  century.  And  as  this  supposition  ig 
not  sufficiently  proved,  the  inference  from  it  is  nothing  worth. 

9.  You  say,  Secondly,  "  This  age,  in  which  Christianity  was  es- 
tablished, had  no  occasion  for  any  miracles.  They  would  not  there- 
fore begin  to  forge  miracles,  at  a  time  when  there  was  no  particular 
temptation  to  it."  (ibid.)  Yes,  the  greatest  temptation  in  the  world, 
if  they  were  such  mea  as  you  suppose.  If  they  were  men  that 
"  would  scruple  no  art  or  means  to  enlarge  their  own  credit  and 
authority,"  they  would  naturally  "  begin  to  forge  miracles"  at  that 
time,  when  real  miracles  were  no  more. 

10.  You  say,  Thirdly,  "  The  later  Fathers  had  equal  piety  with 
the  earlier,  but  more  learning  and  less  credulity.  If  these  then  be 
found  either  to  have  forged  miracles  themselves,  or  propagated  what 
they  knew  to  be  forged,  or  to  have  been  deluded  by  the  forgeries 
of  others,  it  must  excite  the  same  suspicion  of  their  predecessors.''' 
{p.  85.)  I  answer,  1.  It  is  not  plain  that  the  later  Fathers  had  equal 
piety  with  the  earlier ;  nor,  2.  That  they  had  less  credulity.  It 
seems  some  of  them  had  much  more  ;  witness  Hilarion's  camel,  and 
smelling  a  devil  or  sinner;  (Free  Inquiry,  p.  89,  90)  though  even  he 
was  not  so  quick-scented  as  St.  Pachomius,  who  (as  many  believe  to 
this  day)  could  '  smell  a  heretic  at  a  mile's  distance.'  But  if,  3,  the 
earlier  Fathers  were  holier  than  the  later,  they  were  not  only  less 
likely  to  delude  others,  but  (even  on  Plato's  supposition)  to  be  de- 
luded themselves.     For  they  would  have  more  assistance  from  God. 

11.  But  you  say,  "  Fourthly,  The  earlier  ages  of  the  church  were 
not  purer  than  the  later.  Nay,  in  some  respects  they  were  worse. 
For  there  never  was  any  age  in  which  so  many  rank  heresies  were 
professed,  or  so  many  spurious  books  forged  and  published,  under 
the  names  of  Christ  and  his  apostles,"  (Introd.  Disc.  p.  86  :)  "seve- 
ral of  which  are  cited  by  the  most  eminent  Fathers  of  those  ages,  as 
of  equal  authority  with  the  Scriptures.  And  none  can  doubt  but 
those  who  would  forge,  or  make  use  of  forged  books,  would  make 
use  of  forged  miracles,"  p.  87. 

I  answer,  1.  It  is  allowed,  that  before  the  end  of  the  third  century, 
the  church  was  greatly  degenerated  from  its  first  purity.  Yet  I 
doubt  not,  2.  But  abundantly  more  "  rank  heresies"  have  been  pub- 
licly professed  in  many  later  ages.  But  they  were  not  publicly 
protested  against,  and  therefore  historians  did  not  record  them.  3. 
You  cannot  but  know  it  has  always  been  the  judgment  of  learned 
men,  (which  you  are  at  liberty  to  refute  if  you  are  able,)  that  the 
far  greater  part  of  those  spurious  books  have  been  forged  by  here- 
tics ;  and  that  many  more  were  compiled  by  weak,  well-meaning 
men,  from  what  had  been  orally  delivered  down  from  the  apostles. 
But,  4.  There  have  been  in  the  church  from  the  beginning  men  who 
had  only  the  name  of  Christians.  And  these  doubtless  were  capa- 
ble of  pious  frauds  (so  called.)  But  this  ought  not  to  be  charged 
upon  the  whole  body.     Add  to  this,  5,  what  is  observed  by  Mi% 

Vol.  9.--C 


14  A    rETl-EK    T«    PB.    MIDDLETo:^ 

Daille  ;  '  I  impute  a  great  part  of  this  mischief  to  those  men,  who? 
hefore  the  invention  of  printing,  were  the  transcribers  and  copiers 
out  of  manuscripts.  We  may  well  presume  that  these  men  took  the 
same  liberty  in  forging  as  St.  Jerome  complains  they  did  in  corrupt- 
ing books  ;  especially  since  this  course  was  beneficial  to  them,  whicVi 
the  other  was  not.'     Much  more  to  the  same  efl'ect  we  have  in  his 

treatise   Of  the  right  use  of  the  Fathers,  part  I.  chap.  iii. N.  B. 

These  transcribers  were  not  all  Christians,  no,  not  in  name  :  perhaps 
few,  if  any  of  them,  in  the  first  century.  6.  By  what  evidences  do 
you  prove,  that  these  spurious  books  "  are  frequently  cited  by  the 
most  eminent  Fathers,  as  not  only  genuine,  but  of  equal  authority 
with  the  Scriptures  themselves  1"  Or,  lastly,  that  they  either  forged 
these  books  themselves,  or  made  use  oi  what  they  knew  to  be  forged  1 
These  things  also  you  are  not  to  take  for  granted,  but  to  prove,  be- 
fore your  argument  can  be  of  force. 

1 2.  We  are  come  at  last  to  your  "  general  conclusion.  There 
is  no  sufficient  reason  to  believe,  that  any  miraculous  powers  sub- 
sisted in  any  age  of  the  church  after  the  times  of  the  apostles,"  p.  91 , 

But  pretended  miracles,  you  say,  rose  thus.  "  As  the  high  autho- 
rity of  the  apostolic  writings  excited  some  of  the  most  learned  Chris- 
tians" (prove  that)  "  to  forge  books  under  their  names  ;  so  the  great- 
fame  of  the  apostolic  miracles,  would  naturally  excite  some  of  th^ 
most  crafty,  when  the  apostles  were  dead,  to  attempt  some  juggling 
tricks  in  imitation  of  them.  And  when  these  artlul  pretenders  had 
maintained  their  ground  through  the  three  first  centuries,  the  leading- 
clergy  of  the  fourth  understood  their  interest  too  well  to  part  with 
the  old  plea  of  miraculous  gifts,"  p.  92. 

Round  assertions  indeed !  But  surely,  Sir,  you  do  not  think  that 
reasonable  men  will  take  these  for  proofs  !  You  are  here  advancing 
a  charge  of  the  blackest  nature.  But  where  are  your  vouchers  1 
Where  are  the  witnesses  to  support  it  1  Hitherto  you  have  not  been 
able  to  produce  one,  through  a  course  of  three  hundred  years  ;  unless 
you  bring  in  those  Heathen,  of  whose  senseless,  shameless  preju- 
dices, you  have  yourself  given  so  clear  an  account. 

But  you  designed  to  produce  your  witnesses  in  the  Free  Inquiry, 
a  year  or  two  after  the  Introductory  Discourse  was  published.  So 
you  condemn  them  first,  and  try  them  afterwards ;  you  will  pass  sen- 
tence now,  and  hear  the  evidence  by  and  by  !  A  genuine  speci- 
men of  that  impartial  regard  to  truth,  which  you  profess  on  all  occa- 
sions. 

13.  Another  instance  of  this  is  in  your  marginal  note.  "  The 
primitive  Christians  were  ];erpetually  reproached  for  their  gross  cre- 
dulity." They  were  ;  but  by  whom  1  Wliy,  by  Jews  and  Heathens. 
Accordingly  the  two  witnesses  you  produce  here,  are,  Celsus,  the 
Jew,  and  Julian,  the  apostate.  But  lest  this  should  not  suffice,  you 
make  them  confess  the  charge.  "  The  Fathers,"  your  words  are, 
"  defend  themselves  by  sajing,  that  they  did  no  more  tiian  the  phi- 
losophers had  always  done  :  that  Pythagoras's  precepts  were  incul- 
cated with  an  ipse  dixit,  and  tliey  found  the  same  method  useful  with 


A  LETXEK   TO   DR.    MIDDLETOX.  la 

Xlie  vulgar,"  (p.  93.)  And  is  this  their  tvhole  defence  1  Do  the  very 
men  to  whom  you  refer,  Origen  and  Arnobius,  in  the  very  tracts  to 
which  you  refer,  give  no  other  answer,  than  this  argument,  ad  homi- 
nem  1  Stand  this  as  another  genuine  proof  of  Dr.  Middleton's  can- 
dour and  impartiaUty  j 

14.  A  further  proof  of  your  "frank  and  open  nature,"  and  of 
your  "  contenting  yourself  with  the  discharge  of  your  own  con- 
science, by  a  free  declaration  of  your  real  sentiments,"  I  find  in  the 
very  next  page.  Here  you  solemnly  declare,  "  Christianity  is  con- 
firmed by  the  evidence  of  such  miracles,  as,  of  all  others  on  record, 
are  the  least  liable  to  exception,  and  carry  the  clearest  marks  of  their 
sincerity ;  being  wrought  by  Christ  and  his  apostles,  for  an  end  so 
great,  so  important,  as  to  be  highly  worthy  the  interposition  of  the 
Deity  :  wrought  by  mean  and  simple  men,  and  delivered  by  eye-wit- 
nesses, whose  characters  exclude  the  suspicion  of  fraud,"  (p.  94.) 
Sir,  do  you  believe  one  word  of  what  you  so  solemnly  declare  ]  You 
have  yourself  declared  the  contrary.  But  if  you  do  not,  where  shall 
Ave  have  you  \  O^  how  can  we  believe  you  another  time  ?  How 
shall  we  know,  I  will  not  say,  when  you  speak  truth,  but  when  you 
would  have  us  think  you  do  ?  By  what  criterion  sliall  we  distinguish 
between  what  is  spoken  in  your  real,  and  what  in  your  personated 
character  %  How  discern  when  you  speak  as  Dr.  Middleton,  and 
when  as  the  public  librarian  ? 

15.  You  go  on,  "  By  granting  the  Romanists  but  a  single  age  of 
miracles  after  the  apostles,  we  shall  be  entangled  in  difficulties  whence 
we  can  never  extricate  ourselves,  till  we  allow  the  same  powers  to 
the  present  age  !"  (p.  96.)  I  will  allow  them,  however,  three  ages 
of  miracles,  and  let  them  make  what  advantage  of  it  they  can. 

You  proceed.  "  If  the  Scriptures  are  a  complete  rule,"  (I  reject 
the  word  sufficient,  because  it  is  ambiguous,)  "  we  do  not  want  the 
l^'athers  as  guides,  or  if  clear,  as  interpreters.  An  esteem  for  them 
has  carried  many  into  dangerous  errors,  the  neglect  of  them  can  have 
i\o  ill  consequences,"  (p.  97.)  i  answer,  1.  The  Scriptures  are  a 
complete  rule  of  faith  and  practice  ;  and  they  are  clear  in  all  neces- 
sary points.  And  yet  their  clearness  does  not  prove,  that  they  need 
not  be  explained  ;  nor  their  completeness,  that  they  need  not  be 
enforced,  2.  The  esteeming  the  writings  of  the  three  first  centuries, 
not  equally  witii,  but  next  to  the  Scriptures,  never  carried  any  man 
yet  into  dangerous  errors,  nor  probably  ever  will.  But  it  has  brought 
many  out  of  dangerous  errors,  and  particularly  out  of*  the  errors  of 
popery.  3.  The  neglect,  in  your  sense,  of  the  primitive  Fathers, 
that  is,  the  thinking  they  wer  all  fools  and  knaves,  has  this  natural 
consequence,  (which  I  grant  is  no  ill  one,  according  to  your  princi- 
ples,) to  make  all  who  are  not  real  Christians,  think  Jesus  of  Naza- 
reth and  his  apostles,  just  as  honest  and  wise  as  they. 

16.  You  afterwards  endeavour  to  show  how  the  church  of  Eng- 
land came  to  have  such  an  esteem  for  the  ancient  fathers.  There 
are  several  particulars  in  this  account  which  are  liable  to  exception. 
But  I  let  them  pass,  as  they  have  little  connexion  with  the  point  in 
«luestion. 


16  A  LETTER  TO  DR.  UIIDDLETO]?. 

17.  You  conclxide  your  introductory  discourse  thus  :  "The  design 
of  the  present  treatise,  is  to  fix  the  religion  of  the  protestants  on  it)? 
proper  basis,  that  is,  on  the  sacred  Scriptures,"  (p.  HI.)  Here 
again  you  speak  in  your  personated  character ;  as  also  when  you 
"  freely  own  the  primitive  writers,  to  be  of  use  in  attesting  and 
-transmitting  to  us  the  genuine  books  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  !"  (p. 
112.)  Books,  for  the  full  attestation  as  well  as  safe  transmission 
whereof,  you  have  doubtless  the  deepest  concern ! 

18.  I  cannot  dismiss  this  discourse  without  observing,  that  the 
uncommon  artfulness  and  disingenuity  which  glare  through  the 
whole,  must  needs  give  disguf>t  to  every  honest  and  upright  heart, 
nor  is  it  any  credit  at  all  to  the  cause  you  have  espoused.  Nay,  I 
am  persuaded  there  are  many  in  these  kingdoms,  who,  though  they 
think  as  you  do  concerning  the  Christian  system,  yet  could  not  endure 
the  thought  of  writing  against  it  in  the  manner  that  you  have  done  ; 
of  combating  fraud  (if  it  were  so)  with  fraud,  and  practising  the  very 
thing  which  they  professed  to  expose  and  abhor. 

In  your  Free  Inquiry  itself  you  propose,* 

I.  "  To  draw  out  in  order  all  the  principal  testimonies  which  re- 
late to  miraculous  gifts,  as  they  are  found  in  the  writings  of  the 
fathers,  from  the  earliest  ages  after  the  apostles  ;  whence  we  shall 
see  at  one  view,  the  whole  evidence  by  which  they  have  hitherto 
been  supported." 

II.  "  To  throw  together  all  which  those  fathers  have  delivered, 
concerning  the  persons  said  to  have  been  endued  with  those  gifts." 

III.  "To  illustrate  the  particular  characters  and  opinions  of  the 
fathers  who  attest  those  miracles,"  (p.  2.) 

IV.  "  To  review  all  the  several  kinds  of  miracles  which  are  pre- 
tended to  have  been  wrought,  and  to  observe  from  the  nature  of  each 
how  far  they  may  reasonably  be  suspected." 

V.  "  To  refute  some  of  the  most  plausible  objections,  which  have 
been  hitherto  made." 

I  was  in  hopes  you  Avould  have  given,  at  least,  in  entering  upon 
your  main  work,  what  you  promised  so  long  ago,  an  account  of 
"  The  proper  nature  and  condition  of  those  miraculous  powers, 
which  are  the  subject  of  the  whole  dispute,  as  they  are  represented 
to  us  in  the  history  of  the  gospel,"  (Pref  p.  10.)  But  as  you  do 
not  appear  to  have  any  thought  of  doing  it  at  all,  you  will  give  me 
leave  at  length  to  do  it  for  you. 

The  origiAal  promise  of  these  runs  thus  :  '  These  signs  shall  fol- 
low them  that  believe.  In  my  name  shall  they  cast  out  devils  ;  they 
shall  speak  with  new  tongues  ;  they  shall  take  up  serpents,  and  if 
they  drink  any  deadly  thing,  it  shall  not  hurt  them.  They  shall  lay 
hands  on  the  sick,  and  they  shall  recover,'  Mark  xvi.  17,  18. 

A  further  account  is  given  of  them  by  St.  Peter,  on  the  very  day 
whereon  that  promise  was  fulfilled.  '  This  is  that  which  is  spoken  of 
by  the  prophet  Joel,  And,  it  shall  come  to  pass  in  the  last  days,  (said 

*  Free  Inquiry,  p.  1. 


A  LETTER  TO  DR.  ]MIDDLETO^^  .17 

Cirod,)  yoiiF  sons  and  your  daughters  shall  proplicsj;-,  an  J  your  youug 
irien  shall  see  visions,  and  your  old  men  shall  dream  dreams,'  Act?:; 
ji.  IG,  17. 

The  account  given  by  St.  Paul  is  a  little  fuller  than  this  :  *  There 
are  diversities  of  gifts,'  (y^x^ta-f^xTa)]!,  the  usual  scriptural  term  for  thr 
miraculous  gifts  of  the  Holy  (ihost)  'but  the  same  Spirit. — For  to 
one  is  given  the  word  of  wisdom — to  another  the  gifts  of  healing — to 
another  the  working  of  (other)  miracles — to  another  prophecy — to 
another  discernment  of  spirits — to  another  divers  kinds  of  tongues — 
to  another  the  interpretation  of  tongues.  All  these  worketh  that  one 
and  the  same  Spirit,  dividing  to  every  man  severally  as  he  will,' 
1  Cor.  xii.  8— U. 

Hence  we  may  observe,  that  the  chief  ;fc;«o(5-^«sTas,  spiritual  gifts 
conferred  on  the  apostolical  church,  were,  1.  Casting  out  devils  ; 
2.  Speaking  with  new  tongues ;  S.  Escaping  dangers  in  which 
otherwise  they  must  have  perished  ;  4  Healing  the  sick ;  5.  Pro- 
phecy, foretelling  things  to  come;  6.  Visions  ;  7.  Divine  dreams  ; 
and,  8.  Discerning  of  spirits. 

Some  of  these  appear  to  have  been  chiefly  designed  for  the 
conviction  of  Jews  and  Heathens,  as  the  casting  out  devils,  and 
speaking  with  new  tongues  ;  some  chiefly  for  the  benefit  of  their 
fellow  Christians,  as  healing  the  sick,  foretelling  the  things  to  come, 
and  the  discernment  of  spirits  ;  and  all,  in  order  to  enable  those  who 
either  wrought  or  saw  them,  to  *  run  with  patience  the  race  set  be- 
fore them,'  through  all  the  storms  of  persecution,  which  the  most 
inveterate  prejudice,  rage,  and  malice,  could  raise  against  them. 

I.  1.  You  are,  first,  "To  draw  out  in  order  all  the  principal  tes- 
timonies, which  relate  to  miraculous  gifts,  as  they  are  found  in  the 
writings  of  the  fathers  from  the  earliest  ages  after  the  apostles." 

You  begin  with  the  apostolic  fathers,  that  is,  those  who  lived  and 
conversed  with  the  apostles.  ".There  are  several,"  you  say,  "  of 
(his  character,  whose  writings  still  remain  to  lis,  St.  Barnabas,  St. 
Clemens,  St.  Ignatius,  St.  Polycarp,  St.  Hermas."  "Now  if  those 
gifts  had  subsisted  after  the  days  of  the  apostles,  these  must  have  pos- 
sessed a  large  share  of  them.  But  if  any  of  them  had,  he  would  have 
mentioned  it  in  his  writings,  which  not  one  of  them  has  done,"  (p.  3.) 

The  argument  fully  proposed,  runs  thus  : 

If  any  such  gifts  had  subsisted  in  them,  or  in  their  days,  they  must 
have  mentioned  them  in  their  Circular  Epistles  to  the  Churches  (foi 
so  their  predecessors,  the  Apostles  did:)  but  they  did  not  mention 
any  such  gifts  therein. 

Sir,  Your  consequence  is  not  of  any  force.  As  will  easily  appear 
by  a  parallel  argument. 

If  such  gifts  had  subsisted  in  St.  Peter,  or  in  his  days,  he  mu^i 
have  mentioned  them  in  his  Circular  Epistles  to  the  Churches.  But 
he  does  not  mention  any  such  gifts  therein.  Therefore  they  did  not 
subsist  in  him,  or  in  his  days.  Your  argument,  therefore,  proves  too 
much  ;  nor  can  it  conclude  against  an  apostolic  father,  without  con- 
cluding against  the  apostle  too. 


18  A  LETTER  TO  DB.  MIDDLETaN. 

If,  therefore,  the  apostoUc  fathers,  had  not  mentioned  any  mira- 
culous gifts,  in  their  Circular  Epistles  to  the  Churches,  you  could 
not  have  inferred  that  they  ])ossessed  none  :  since  neither  does  he 
mention  them  in  his  Circular  Epistles,  whom  you  allow  to  have  pos- 
sessed them. 

Of  all  the  Apostles  you  can  produce  but  one,  St.  Paul,  who 
makes  mention  of  those  gifts.  And  that  not  in  his  Circular  Epistles- 
to  the  Churches.     For  1  know  not  that  he  wrote  any  such. 

3.  All  this  time  I  have  been  arguing  on  your  own  suppositions, 
that  these  five  apostolic  fathers,  all  wrote  Circular  Epistles  to  the 
Churches,  and  yet  never  mentioned  these  gifts  therein.  But  neither 
of  these  suppositions  is  true.  For,  1.  Hennas  wrote  no  Epistle  at 
all :  2.  Although  the  rest  wrote  Epistles  to  particular  Churches, 
(Clemens  to  the  Corinthians,  Ignatius  to  the  Romans,  &c.)  yet  not 
one  of  them  wrote  any  Circular  Epistles  to  the  Churches,  like  those 
of  St.  James  and  St.  Peter,  (unless  we  allow  that  to  be  a  genuine 
epistle,  which  bears  the  name  of  St.  Barnabas.)  3.  You  own,  they 
all  "speak  of  spiritual  gifts,  as  abounding  among  the  Christians  of. 
that  age  :"  but  assert,  "  These  cannot  mean  any  thing  more,  than 
faith,  hope,  and  charity."  (p.  3.)  You  assert — But  the  proof.  Sir;  I 
want  the  proof.  Though  I  am  but  one  of  the  vulgar,  yet  I  am  not 
half  so  credulous  as  you  apprehend  the  first  Christians  to  have  been* 
Ipse  dixi  will  not  satisfy  me  ;  I  want  plain,  clear,  logical  proof;  eS" 
pecially,  when  I  consider,  how  much  you  build  upon  this  ;  that  is  the 
main  foundation  whereon  your  hypothesis  stands.  You  yourself  must 
allow,  that  in  the  Epistle  of  St.  Paul,  wivfA.»TiKct.  x'^^iif^*^'^^,  spiritual 
gifts,  does  always  mean  more  than  faith,  hope,  and  charity ;  that  it 
constantly  means  miraculous  gifts.  How  then  do  you  prove,  that  in  the 
Epistles  of  St.  Ignatius,  it  means  quite  another  thing?  Not  miracu- 
lous gifts,  but  only  "  the  ordinary  gifts  and  graces  of  the  gospel  ]" 
I  thought  "  the  reader"  was  to  "  find  no  evasive  distinctions  in  the 
following  sheets,"  (Pref.  p.  31.)  Prove  then  that  this  distinction  is 
not  evasive  :  that  the  same  words  mean  absolutely  different  things. 
Till  this  is  clearly  and  solidly  done,  reasonable  men  must  beheve 
that  this  and  the  like  expressions  mean  the  same  thing  in  the  writings 
of  the  apostolical  fathers,  as  they  do  in  the  writings  of  the  apostles  ; 
namely,  not  the  ordinary  graces  of  the  gospel,  but  the  extraordinary 
gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

3.  You  aim  indeed  at  a  proof,  which  would  be  home  to  the  point, 
if  you  were  but  able  to  make  it  out.  "  These  fathers  themselves 
seem  to  disclaim  all  gifts  of  a  more  extraordinary  kind.  Thus 
Polycarp,  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Philippians,  says,  '  neither  I,  nor  any 
other  such  as  I  am,  can  come  up  to  the  wisdom  of  the  blessed  Paul.' 
And  in  the  same  Epistle  he  declares,  '  It  was  not  granted  to  him  to 
practise  that,  be  ye  angry,  and  sin  not.'  St.  Ignatius  also  in  his 
Epistles  to  the  Ephesians,  says,  '  These  things  I  prescribe  to  you, 
not  as  if  I  were  somebody  extraordinary.  For  though  I  am  bound 
'for  his  name,  I  am  not  yet  perfect  in  Christ  Jesus.'"  (p.  7,  8.)  I 
4^jlilv,  verily,  these  extraordinary  proofs  may  stand  without  any  reply. 


A   LETTKB   TO   DB.    3IIBDLET0X.  1$ 

4.  Yet  you  courteously  add,  "  If  from  the  passages  vcferred  to 
above,  or  any  other,  it  should  appear  probable  to  any,  that  they  were 
favoured  on  some  occasions,  with  some  extraordinary  illuminations, 
visions,  or  divine  impressions ;  I  shall  not  dispute  that  point,  but  re- 
mind them  only  that  these  gifts  were  granted  for  their  particular 
comfort,  and  do  not  therefore  in  any  manner  aliiect,  or  relate  to  the 
question  now  before  us."     (p.  10.) 

I  ask  pardon.  Sir.  These  do  so  deeply  affect,  so  nearly  relate  to 
the  question  now  before  us,  even  as  stated  by  youiself,  (Pref.  p.  28,) 
that  in  allowing  these,  you  give  up  the  substance  of  the  question. 
You  yourself  have  declared,  that  one  great  end  of  the  extraordinary 
gifts  conferred  on  the  apostles  was,  "  To  enable  them  to  bear  up 
against  the  shocks  of  popular  rage  and  persecution."  Now  were 
not  "  extraordinary  illuminations,  visions,  and  impressions,"  if  given 
at  all,  given  for  this  very  end  1  "  For  their  particular  comfort,"  as 
you  now  word  it  1  Therefore  in  allowing  these  to  the  apostolic 
fathers,  you  allow  extraordinary  gifts,  which  had  been  formerly 
granted  to  the  apostles,  to  have  "  subsisted  in  the  church  after  the 
days  of  the  apostles,"  and  for  the  same  end  as  they  did  before. 

5.  Therefore  "  the  apostolic  writers  have"  not  "  left  us  in  the 
dark,"  with  regard  to  our  present  argument.  And  consequently 
your  triumph  comes  too  soon  :  "  Here  then  we  have  an  interval  of 
half  a  centur)^,  in  which  we  have  the  strongest  reason  to  presume, 
that  the  extraordinary  gifts  of  the  apostolic  age  were  withdrawn," 
(p.  9.)  No:  not  if  all  "the  apostolic  fathers  speak  of  spiritual 
gifts,  as  abounding  among  the  Christians  of  that  age  :"  not  if  "  ex- 
traordinary illuminations,  visions,  and  divine  impressions  still  subsisted 
among  them."  For  as  to  your  now  putting  in,  "  as  exerted  openly 
in  the  church  for  the  conviction  of  unbelievers,"  I  must  desire  you 
to  put  it  out  again  ;  it  comes  a  great  deal  too  late.  The  question 
between  you  and  me  was  stated  without  it,  above  a  hundred  pages 
back.  Although  if  it  be  admitted,  it  will  do  you  no  service  :  seeing 
your  proposition  is  overthrown,  if  there  were  "  miraculous  gifts 
after  the  days  of  the  apostles,"  whether  they  were  "  openly  exerted 
for  the  conviction  of  unbelievers"  or  not. 

6.  I  was  a  little  surprised,  that  you  should  take  your  leave  of  the 
apostolic  fathers  so  soon.  But  upon  looking  forward,  my  surprise 
was  at  an  end  ;  I  found  you  were  not  guilty  of  any  design  to  spare 
ihem :  but  only  delayed  your  remarks  till  the  reader  should  be 
prepared  for  what  might  have  shocked  him,  had  it  stood  in  its  proper 
place. 

I  do  not  find  indeed,  that  you  make  any  objection  to  any  part  of 
the  Epistles  of  Ignatius,  nor  of  the  Catholic  Epistle  which  is  inscribed 
with  the  name  of  Barnabas.  'This  clearly  convinces  me,  you  have 
not  read  it ;  I  am  apt  to  think,  not  one  page  of  it ;  seeing,  if  you 
had,  you  would  never  have  let  slip  such  an  opportunity  of  exposing'^ 
one  that  was  called  an  apostolic  father. 

7.  But  it  would  have  been  strange,  if  you  had  not  somewhere 
"brought  in  the  famous  phoenix  of  Clemens  Romanus.     And  yet  yoU: 


2©  A   LE1?5PER   TO    BH.    3IippLET0>'. 

are  very  merciful  upon  that  head,  barely  remarking  concerning  If, 
that  "  he  alleged  the  ridiculous  story  ot  the  phoenix,  as  a  type  and 
proof  of  the  resurrection,"  (p.  59.)  Whether  "  all  the  heathen 
writers  treat  it  as  nothing  else  but  a  mere  fable,"  1  know  not.  But 
*hat  it  is  so,  is  certain  ;  and  consequently  the  argument  drawn  from 
it  is  weak  and  inconclusive.  Yet  it  will  not  hence  follow,  that  either 
Clemens  was  a  wicked  man,  or  that  he  had  none  of  the  extraordi- 
nary gilts  of  the  Spirit. 

8.  i  here  is  no  real  blemish  to  be  found,  in  the  whole  character 
of  St.  Poiycarp.  But  there  is  one  circumstance  left  upon  record 
concerning  him,  which  has  the  appearance  of  weakness.  And  with 
this  you  do  not  tail  to  acquaint  your  reader  at  a  convenient  season  : 
namely,  "  That  in  the  most  ancient  dispute,  concerning  the  time  of 
holding  Easter,  St.  Poiycarp  and  Anicetus  severally  alleged  apos- 
tolic tradition  for  their  ditferent  practice,"  (p.  60.)  And  it  is  not 
improbable,  that  both  alleged  what  was  true  ;  that  in  a  point  of  so 
little  importance  the  apostles  varied  themselves  ;  some  of  them  ob- 
:^erving  it  on  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  moon,  and  others  not.  But 
be  this  as  it  may,  it  can  be  no  proof,  either  that  Poiycarp  was  not  an 
holy  man,  or  that  he  was  not  favoured  with  the  extraordinary,  as  well 
as  ordinary  gifts  of  the  Spirit. 

9.  With  regard  to  the  "  narrative  of  his  martyrdom,"  you  affirm, 
•'  It  is  one  of  the  most  authentic  pieces  in  all  primitive  antiquity," 
(p.  124.)  1  will  not  vouch  Jor  its  authenticity  :  nor  therefore  for  the 
story  of  the  dove,  the  flame  forming  an  arch,  the  fragrant  smell,  or 
the  revelation  to  Pionius.  But  your  attempt  to  account  for  these 
things,  is  truly  curious.  You  say,  "  An  arch  of  flame  round  his 
body  is  an  appearance  which  might  easily  happen,  from  the  common 
effects  of  wind.  And  the  dove  said  to  lly  out  of  him,  might  be  con- 
veyed into  the  wood  which  was  prepared  to  consume  him,"  (p.  129.) 
How  much  more  naturally  may  we  account  for  both,  by  supposing 
the  whole  to  be  a  modern  fiction,  written  on  occasion  of  that  account 
mentioned  by  Eusebius,  but  lost  many  ages  ago  'I  But  whatever  may 
be  thought  of  this  account  of  his  death,  neither  does  this  affect  the 
question,  whether  during  his  life  he  was  endued  with  the  miraculous 
gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

10.  There  is  one  of  those  whom  you  style  apostolic  fathers  yet 
behind,  of  whom  you  talk  full  as  familiarly  as  of  the  rest.  I  mean, 
Hermas  :  "  to  whom,"  you  say,  "  some  impute  the  fraud  of  forging 
theSibyUine  books,"  (p.  37.)  It  would  not  have  been  amiss,  if 
you  had  told  us,  which  of  the  ancients,  whether  Christian,  Jew,  or 
Heathen,  ever  accused  him  of  this.  If  none  ever  did,  some  will  be 
apt  to  think,  it  is  giving  a  person  but  hard  measure,  to  bring  an  ac- 
cusation against  him  which  never  wsks  heard  of,  till  sixteen  hundred 
years  after  his  death. 

But  [  can  the  more  easily  excuse  you,  because  he  is  a  person 
whom  you  are  wholly  unacquainted  with.  Though  it  is  much  cu- 
fiosity  did  not  lead  you,  when  you  had  archbii»hop  Wake's  translation 
in  your  hand,  to  read  over  if  it  were  but  half  a  dozen  pages  of  his 


A   LETTER   TO   BK.   JillDBr.ETON.  21 

famous  Shepberd.  But  charity  obliges  me  to  believe  you  never  did. 
Otherwise  I  cannot  conceire  you  would  so  peremptorily  affirm,  of 
lilm  and  the  rest  together,  "  There  is  not  the  least  claim  or  preten- 
sion, in  all  their  several  pieces,  to  any  of  these  extraordinary  gifts, 
which  are  the  subject  of  this  inquiry,"  (p.  3.)  I  am  amazed  !  Sir, 
have  you  never  a  friend  in  the  world]  If  you  were  yourself  ignorant 
of  the  whole  aifair,  would  no  one  inform  you,  that  all  the  three  books 
of  Hermas,  from  the  first  page  to  the  last,  are  notliing  else  than  a 
recital  of  his  "  extraordinary  gifts,"  his  visions,  prophecies,  and  reve- 
lations 1 

Can  you  expect  after  this,  that  any  man  in  his  senses,  should  take 
your  word  for  any  thing  under  heaven  ?  That  any  one  should  credit 
any  thing  which  you  affirm  1  Or  believe  you  any  farther  than  he  can 
see  you  ?  Jesus  whom  you  persecute  can  forgive  you  this  ;  but  how 
can  you  forgive  yourself  ]  One  would  think,  you  should  be  crying 
out,  day  and  night,  '  The  Shepherd  of  Hermas  will  not  let  me  sleep/ 

H.  You  proceed  to  the  testimony  of  "  Justin  Martyr,  who  wrote 
about  fifty  years  after  the  apostles,"  (p.  10.)  He  says  (I  translate  his 
words  literally,)  "There  are  prophetic  gifts  among  us  even  until  now. 
You  may  see  with  us  both  women  and  men,  having  gifts  from  the 
Spirit  of  God."  He  particularly  insists  on  that  of  "casting  out 
devils,  as  what  every  one  might  see  with  his  own  eyes." 

"  Irenseus,"  who  wrote  somewhat  later,  "  affirms,  '  That  all  who 
were  truly  disciples  of  Jesus,  wrought  miracles  in  his  name  ;  some 
cast  out  devils  ;  others  had  visions,  or  the  knowledge  of  future 
events;  others  healed  the  sick,' (p.  11.)  "  And  as  to  raising  the 
dead,  he  declares  it,  '  to  have  been  frequently  performed  on  neces- 
sary occasions,  by  great  fasting,  and  the  joint  supplication  of  the 
church.  And  we  hear  many,'  says  he,  '  speaking  with  all  kinds  of 
tongues,  and  expounding  the  mysteries  of  God,'  "  p.  12. 

"  Theophilus,  bishop  of  Antioch,  who  lived  in  the  same  age,  speaks 
of  casting  out  devils  as  then  common  in  the  church,"  ibid. 

12.  "  Tertullian,  who  flourished  toward  the  end  of  the  second 
century,  challenges  the  Heathen  magistrates,  to  '  call  before  any  of 
their  tribunals,  any  person  possessed  with  a  devil.  And  if  the  evil 
spirit,  when  commanded  by  any  Christian,  did  not  confess  himself 
to  be  a  devil,  who  elsewhere  called  himself  a  god,  they  should  take 
the  life  of  that  Christian,'  "  ibid. 

"  Minutius  Felix,  supposed  to  have  written  in  the  beginning  of 
the  third  century,  addressing  himself  to  his  heathen  friend,  says, 
'  The  greatest  part  of  you  know  what  confessions  the  demons  make 
concerning  themselves,  when  we  expel  them  out  of  the  bodies  of 
men,' "  p.  13. 

13.  "  <  irigen,  something  younger  than  Minutius,  declares,  that 
there  remained  still  the  manifest  indications  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
'  For  the  Christians,'  says  he  '  cast  out  devils,  perform  many  cures, 
foretell  things  to  come. — Vnd  many  have  been  converted  to  Chris- 
tianity by  visions.      I  have  seen  many  examples  of  this  sort,'  (p.  14.) 

"  In^another  place  he  says,  '  Signs  of  the  Holy  Ghost  were  .shown 


130 


A.  LETTER   TO   DR.    MIDDLETOX. 


at  the  beginning  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  :'  (not  as  you  translate  if, 
^  miracles  began  with  the  teaching  of  Jesus  ;'  that  is  quite  a  ditiierent 
thing  :)  *  more  were  shown  after  his  ascension,  but  afterwards  fewer. 
However,  even  now  there  are  still  some  remains  of  them  with  a  few, 
whose  souls  are  cleansed  by  the  word,  and  a  life  conformable  to  it,' " 
(p.  15.)  "  Again,  '  Some,'  says  he,  '  heal  the  sick.  I  myself  have 
seen  many  so  healed,  of  loss  of  senses,  madness,  and  innumerable 
other  evils,  which  neither  men  nor  devils  can  cure,'  (ibid.)  '  And 
this  is  done,  not  by  magical  arts,  but  by  prayer,  and  certain  plain  ad- 
jurations, such  as  any  common  Christian  may  use  ;  for  generally 
common  men  do  things  of  this  kind,'"  p.  16. 

14.  "  Cyprian,  who  wrote  about  the  middle  of  the  third  century, 
says,  '  Beside  the  visions  of  the  night,  even  in  the  day-time,  inno- 
cent children  among  us  are  filled  with  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  in  ec- 
stasies see,  and  hear,  and  speak  those  things  by  which  God  is  pleased 
to  admonish  and  instruct  us,'  (ibid.)  Elsewhere  he  particularly 
mentions  the  casting  out  devils  :  '  which,'  says  he, '  either  depart 
immediately,  or  by  degrees,  according  to  the  faith  of  the  patient,  or 
the  grace  of  him  that  works  the  cure,'  p.  1 7. 

"  Arnobius,  who  is  supposed  to  have  written  in  the  year  of  Christ 
303,  tells  us,  '  Christ  appears  even  now  to  men  unpolluted,  and 
eminently  holy,  who  love  him  : — whose  very  name  puts  evil  spirits 
to  flight,  strikes  the  prophets  dumb,  deprives  the  soothsayers  of  the 
power  of  answering,  and  frustrates  the  acts  of  arrogant  magicians,' 
p.  18. 

"  Lactantius,  who  wrote  about  the  same  time,  speaking  of  evil 
spirits,  says,  '  Being  adjured  by  Christians,  they  retire  out  of  the 
bodies  of  men— confess  themselves  to  be  demons,  and  tell  their 
names,  even  the  same  which  are  adored  in  the  temples,"  ibid. 

15.  "  These,"  you  say,  "  are  the  principal  testimonies  which  as- 
sert miraculous  gifts  through  the  three  first  centuries  ;  which  might 
be  supported  by  many  more  of  the  same  kind,  from  the  same  as  well 
as  different  writers.  But  none  can  scruple  to  risk  the  fate  of  the 
cause  upon  these,"  (p.  19.)  Thus  far  I  do  not  scruple  it.  I  do  not 
doubt  but  the  testimonies  of  these  nine  witnesses,  added  to  the  evi»- 
dence  of  the  apostolic  Fathers,  will  satisfy  every  impartial  man  with 
regard  to  the  point  in  question.  Yet  I  see  no  cause,  if  there  are 
nine  witnesses  more,  to  give  up  their  evidence;  seeing  you  may  pos- 
sibly raise  objections  against  these  which  the  others  are  uncon- 
cerned in. 

If  then  you  should  invalidate  what  1  have  to  reply  in  behalf  of 
the  witnesses  now  produced,  you  will  have  done  but  half  your  work  : 
I  shall  afterwards  require  a  fair  hearing  for  the  others  also. 

16.  You  close  this  head  with  remarking,  1.  "  That  the  silence  of 
all  the  apostolic  writers  on  the  subject  of  these  gifts,  must  dispose 
us  to  conclude  they  were  withdrawn,"  (p.  19.)  O,  Sir,  mention 
this  no  more.  I  entreat  you,  never  name  their  silence  again.  They 
speak  loud  enough  to  shame  you  as  long  as  you  live.  You  cannot 
therefore  talk  with  any  grace  of  "  the  pretended  revival  ^orf  them. 


A   LETTER  TO  DK.   ailDDLETON.  ^3 

after  a  cessation  of  forty  or  fifty  years  ;"  or  draw  conclusions  from 
that  wliicli  never  was. 

Your  second  remark  is  perfectly  new  :  I  dare  say  none  ever  ob^ 
served  before  yourself,  that  this  particular  circumstance  of  the  primi- 
tive Christians,  "  carried  with  it  an  air  of  imposture,  namely,  their 
*  challenging  all  the  world  to  come  and  see  the  mil  acles  which  they 
wrought  I'  "  (p.  21.)  To  complete  the  argument,  you  should  have 
added.  And  their  staking  their  Zwes  upon  the  performance  of  them. 

17.  I  doubt  you  have  not  gone  one  step  forward  yet.  You  have 
indeed  advanced  many  bold  assertions ;  but  you  have  not  fairly 
proved  one  single  conclusion  with  regard  to  the  point  in  hand.  But 
a  natural  etlect  of  your  lively  imagination  is,  that  from  this  time  you 
argue  more  and  more  weakly;  inasmuch,  as  the  farther  you  go,  the 
more  things  you  imagine,  (and  only  imagine)  yourself  to  have  proved. 
Consequently,  as  you  gather  up  more  mistakes  every  step  you  take, 
every  page  is  more  precarious  than  ihe  former. 

II.  1.  The  second  thing  you  proposed  was,  "  To  throw  together 
all  which  those  Fathers  have  delivered  concerning  the  persons  said 
to  have  been  endued  with  the  extraordinary  gifts  ol  the  Spirit,"  p.  21. 

*'  Now  whenever  we  think  or  speak  with  reverence,"  say  you,  "  of 
those  primitive  times,  it  is  always  with  regard  to  these  very  Fathers, 
whose  testimonies  I  have  been  collecting.  And  they  were  indeed 
the  chief  persons  and  champions  of  the  Christian  cause,  the  pastors, 
bishops,  and  martyrs  of  the  primitive  church ;  namely,  Justin  Martyr, 
Irenaeus,  Theophilus,  Tertullian,  Minutius  Felix,  Origen,  Cyprian, 
Arnobius,  Lactantius."  Sir,  you  stumble  a1  the  threshold.  A 
common  dictionary  may  inform  you  that  these  were  not  all,  either 
pastors,  bishops,  or  martyrs. 

2.  You  go  on  as  you  set  out.  "  Yet  none  of  these  have  any 
where  affirmed,  that  they  themselves  were  endued  with  any  power 
of  working  miracles,"  (p.  22.)  You  should  say,  with  any  of  those 
extraordinary  gifts  promised  by  our  Lord,  and  conferred  on  his 
apostles. 

No  !  Have  "  none  of  these  any  where  affirmed,  that  they  them- 
selves" were  endued  with  any  extraordinary  gifts  ]  What  think  you 
of  the  very  first  of  them,  Justin  Martyr  1  Either  you  are  quite  mis- 
taken in  the  account  you  give  of  him  elsewhere,  (p.  27,  30,)  or  he 
nffirmed  this  of  himself  o\er  and  over.  And  as  to  Cyprian,  you  will 
by  and  by  spend  several  pages  together,  on  the  extraordinary  gifts  he 
(iffinned  himself  to  be  endued  with,  p.  101. 

But  suppose  they  had  not  "any  where  affirmed  this  of  themselves," 
what  Avould  you  infer  therefrom  1  That  they  were  not  endued  with 
any  extraordinary  gifts  1  Then  by  the  very  same  method  of  arguing, 
you  might  prove  that  neither  St.  Peter,  nor  James,  nor  John  were 
endued  with  any  such.  For  neither  do  they  "  any  where  affirm  thi(«! 
©f  themselves"  in  any  of  the  writings  which  they  left  behind  them. 

3.  Your  argument  concerning  the  apostolic  Fathers  is  just  as  con- 
elusive  as  this.  For  if  you  say,  «  The  writers  following  the  apostolic 
Fathers,  do  not  affirm  them  to  have  had  any  miraculous  gifts ;  thcTe- 


54  A    LETTER    TO    DR.    M1»JDLET0K. 

fore  they  had  none  :"  by  a  parity  of  reason  you  must  say,  "  The 
writers  following  the  apostles  do  not  affirnj  them  to  have  had  any 
miraculous  gifts  ;  therefore  the  apostles  had  none.'' 

4.  Your  next  argument  against  the  existt  nee  of  those  gifts  is,- 
**  That  the  Fathers  do  not  tell  us  the  names  of  them  which  had  them." 
This  is  not  altogether  true.  The  names  of  Justm  Martyr  and  Cy- 
prian are  pretty  wel  known:  as  is,  among  the  learned,  that  of  Diony- 
sius,  Bishop  of  Alexandria,  (p.  106,  212.)  But  what  if  they  did  nof? 
Supposing  miraculous  powers  "  were  openly  exened  in  the  church  :" 
and  that  not  only  they  themselves,  but  "  every  one  else  might  see  this 
whenever  they  pleased  :"  if  any  Heathen  might  come  and  see  when- 
ever he  pleased,  what  could  a  reasonable  man  desire  niore  1  What 
did  it  signify  to  him  to  know  the  names  of  those  whom  he  heard  pro- 
phesying, or  saw  working  miracles  ]  Though  without  dnuht,  who- 
ever saw  th.:;  miracles  wrought,  might  easily  learn  the  names  of  those 
that  wrought  them  ;  which  nevertheless  the  Christians  had  no  need 
to  publish  abroad,  to  expose  them  so  much  the  more  to  the  rage  and 
malice  of  their  persecutors. 

6.  Your  thii  d  argument  is,  "  The  Christian  workers  of  miracles 
were  always  charged  with  imposture  by  theii  adversaries.  Lucian 
tells  us, '  Whenever  any  crafty  juggler  went  to  the  Christians,  he  grew 
rich  immediaJely.'  And  Celsus  represents  the  Christian  wonder- 
workers as  rnei  e  '  vagabonds  and  common  cheats,  who  rambled  about 
to  fairs  and  markets,'  "  p.  23. 

And  is  it  any  wonder,  that  either  a  Jew  or  a  Heathen  should  re- 
present them  thus  1  Sir,  I  do  not  blame  you  for  not  believing  the 
Christian  system,  but  for  betraying  so  gross  a  partiality  :  for  gleaning 
up  every  sc;ap  of  Heathen  scandal,  and  palming  it  upon  us  as  un- 
questionable evidence  ;  and  for  not  translating  even  these  miserable 
fragments,  with  any  accuracy  or  faithfulness.  Instead  of  giving  us 
the  text,  bad  as  it  is,  you  commonly  substitute  a  paraphrase  yet 
worse  And  this  the  unlearned  reader  naturally  supposes  to  be  a 
faithful  translation.  It  is  no  credit  to  your  cause  if  it  needs  such  sup- 
ports.    And  this  is  no  credit  to  you  if  it  does  not. 

To  that  of  Lucian  and  Celsus,  you  add  the  evidence  of  Caecilius 
too,  wh  i  calls,  say  you,  "  these  workers  of  miracles,  a  lurking  nation, 
shunning  the  light."  Then  they  were  strangely  altered  all  on  a  sud- 
den. For  you  told  us  that  just  before,  (p.  20,)  they  were  proving 
themselves  cheats  by  a  widely  different  method  ;  by  "  calling  out 
fcoth  upon  magistrates  and  people,  and  challenging  all  the  world  to 
come  and  see  what  they  did  !" 

I  was  not  aware,  that  you  had  yet  begun  "  to  throw  together  all 
which  the  Fathers  have  dehvered,  concerning  the  persons  said  to 
have  been  endued  with  those  extraordinary  gifts."  And,  it  seems, 
you  have  made  an  end  of  it  !  And  accordingly  you  proceed  to  sum 
up  the  evidence,  to  "  observe  upon  the  whole.  From  these  charac.. 
fers  of  the  primitive  wonder-workers,  as  given  both  by  friends  and 
enemies,  we  may  fairly  conclude  that  the  gifts  of  those  ages  were 
jgtcnerally  engrossed  by  private  Christians,  who  travelled  aboat  fron> 


A   LETTER   TO    BR.    MTDDLETON.  Zit 

city  lo  city,  to  assist  the  ordinary  preaching,  in  the  conversion  of 
Pagans,  by  the  extraordinary  miracles  they  pretended  to  perform," 
p.  24. 

"  Characters  given  both  by  friends  and  enemies !"  Pray,  Sir, 
what  friends  have  you  cited  for  this  character  ?  Or  what  enemies, 
€xcept  only  Celsus  the  Jew  1  (And  you  are  a  miserable  interpreter 
for  him.)  So  from  the  single  testimony  of  such  a  witness,  you  lay  it 
down  as  an  oracular  truth,  that  all  the  miracle-workers  of  the  three 
first  ages,  were  vagabonds  and  common  cheats,  rambling  about  from 
city  to  city,  to  assist  in  converting  heathens,  by  tricks  and  imposture  ! 
And  this  you  ingenuousl}'  call,  "  Throwing  together  all  which  the 
Fathers  have  delivered  concerning  them  !" 

9.  But  to  complete  all,  "  Here  again,"  say  you,  "  we  see  a  dis- 
pensation of  things  ascribed  to  God,  quite  different  from  that  which 
we  meet  with  in  the  New  Testament,"  (p.  24.)  We  see  a  dispensation ! 
Where  ?  Not  i;»  the  primitive  church.  Not  in  the  writings  of  one 
single  Christian  :  not  of  one  Heathen  ;  and  only  of  one  Jew  ;  (for 
poor  Celsus  had  not  a  second  ;  though  he  multiplies  under  your  form- 
ing hand,  into  a  cloud  of  witnesses.)  He  alone  ascribes  this  to  the 
ancient  Christians,  which  you  in  their  name  ascribe  to  God.  With 
the  same  regard  tj  truth  you  go  on,  "  In  those  days  the  power  of 
working  miracles"  (you  should  say.  The  extraordinary  gifts)  "was 
committed  to  none  but  those  who  presided  in  the  church  of  Christ." 
Ipse  dixit,  for  that.  But  I  cannot  take  your  word  :  especially  when 
the  apostles  and  evangelists  say  otherwise.  "  But  upon  the  pre- 
tended revival  of  those  powers." — Sir,  we  do  not  pretend  the  revival 
of  them  .•  seeing  we  shall  believe  they  never  were  intermitted,  till  yoti 
can  prove  the  contrary.  "  We  find  the  administration  of  them  com- 
mitted, not  to  those  who  had  the  government  of  the  church  ;  not  to 
the  bishops,  the  martyrs,  to  the  principal  champions  of  the  Christian 
cause,  but  to  boys,  to  women,  and  above  all,  to  '  private  and  obscure 
laymen  :'  not  only  of  an  inferior,  but  sometimes  also  of  a  bad  cha- 
racter." 

Surely,  Sir,  you  talk  in  your  sleep.  You  could  never  talk  thus, 
if  you  had  your  eyes  open,  and  your  understanding  about  you. 
*'  We  find  the  administration  of  them  committed,  not  to  those  who 
had  the  government  of  the  church."  No  !  I  thought  Cyprian  had 
had  the  government  of  the  church  at  Carthage,  and  Dionysius  at 
Alexandria !  "  Not  to  the  bishops."  Who  were  these  then,  that 
were  mentioned  last?  Bishops  or  no  bishops  ?  "  Not  to  the  martyrs." 
Well,  if  Cyprian  was  neither  bishop  nor  martyr,  I  hope  you  will 
allow  Justin's  claim.  "  Not  to  the  princi;)al  champions  of  the 
Christian  cause." — And  yec  you  told  us  three  pages  since,  that 
"  these  very  Fathers  were  the  chief  champions  of  the  Christiao 
cause  in  those  days  !"  "But  to  boys,  and  to  women."  I  answer, 
*  This  is  that  which  was  spoken  of  by  the  prophet  Joel,  It  shall 
come  to  pass  that  I  will  pour  out  my  Spirit,  saith  the  Lord,  and  your 
sons  and  your  daughters  shall  prophesy  !'  A  circumstance  which 
iurns  this  argument  full  against  you,  till  you  openly  avow  you  dQ 
Vol.  9.— D 


26  A   LfiT^TI^K   TO   jDB.  JIlDDLErrOS** 

not  believe  tlaose  pyophecies.  "  And  above  all,  to  private  and  ol).- 
scure  laymen,  not  only  of  an  inferior,  but  sometimes  of  a  bad  charac»^ 
ter."  I  answer,  1-  You  cite  only  one  Anti-nicene  writer,  to  prove 
them  committed  to  "  private  and  obscure  laymen."  And  he  says  this 
and  no  more,  '  Generally  private  men  do  things  of  this  kind/*  By 
what  rule  of  grammar  you  construe  i^'imtcci,  private  and  obscure  laymen, 
I  know  not.  2.  To  prove  "  these  were  sometimes  men  of  a  bad 
character,"  you  quote  also  but  one  Anti-nicene  Father.  (For  I  pre^ 
sume  you  will  not  assert  the  germineness  of  the  (so  called)  Jlposta^ 
Ileal  ConstUutions. )  And  that  one  is,  in  effect,  none  at  all.  It  is  Ter- 
tullian,  who  in  his  Prescription  against  Heretics,  says,  '  They  will  add 
many  things  of  the  authority  (or  power)  of  every  heretical  preacher: 
that  they  raised  the  dead,  healed  the  sick,  foretold  things  to  come."f 
They  will  add — But  did  TertuUian  believe  them?  There  is  no 
shadow  of  reason  to  think  he  did.  And  if  not,  what  is  all  this  to  the 
purpose  ?  No  more  than  the  tales  of  later  ages  which  you  add,  con- 
cerning the  miracles  wrought  by  "  bones  and  relics." 

10.  "These  things,"  you  add,  "are  so  strange,  as  to  give  just 
reason  to  suspect,  that  there  was  some  original  fraud  in  the  case,  and 
that  those  strolling  wor.der-workers,  by  a  dexterity  of  juggling,  inl- 
posed  Uj)on  the  pious  Fathers,  whose  strong  prejudices  and  ardent 
zeal  for  the  interest  of  Christianity,  would  dispose  tliem  to  embrace, 
without  examination,  whatever  seemed  to  promote  so  good  a  cause." 
(p.  25.)  •  You  now  speak  tolerably  plain,  and  would  be  much  disap- 
pointed if  those,  who  have  no  strong  prejudices  for  Christianity,  did 
not  apply  what  you  say  of  these  strolling  wonder-workers  to  the 
Apostles,  as  well  as  their  successors. 

11.  A  very  short  answer  will  suthce.  "These  things  are  sg» 
Strange."  They  are  more  strange  than  true.  You  have  not  proved 
one  jot  or  tittle  of  them  yet.  Therefore  the  consequences  you  dratf 
must  fall  to  the  ground  till  you  find  them  some  better  support. 

12.  Nay,  but  "it  is  certain  and  notorious,"  you  say,  "that  thi,s 
was  really  the  case  in  some  instances  •"  that  is,  that  "  strolling,  jug- 
i^ling  wonder-workers  imposed  upon  the  pious  Fathers."  (p.  26.) 
Sir,  I  must  come  in  again  whh  my  cuckoo's  note,  the  proof?  Where 
is  the  proof?  Till  this  is  produced  I  cannot  allow  that  this  is  certaijii 
and  notorious,  even  in  one  individual  instance. 

13.  Let  us  now  stand  still  and  observe,  what  it  is  you  have  made 
out,  under  this  second  head.  What  you  proposed  was,  "  To  throw 
together  all  which  the  primitive  Fathers  had  delivered,  concerning- 
the  persons  said  to  be  then  endued  with  the  extraordinary  gifts  of  the 
Spirit."  And  how  have  you  executed  what  you  proposed  ?  You 
have  thrown  together  a  quotation  from  a  Jew,  two  from  Heathens, 

-three  quarters  of  a  line  from  Origen!  and  three  lines  from  Tertul- 
lian  !  (nothing  at  all,  it  is  true,  to  the  point  in  question.  But  that 
5"ou  could  not  help.) 

*  Sl%nfi-av  liiinTai  to  roiHTOvspaT'Jiifrt. 

Origen.  Gont.  Ccls.  1.  rii. 
t  Adjicieni  raulta  da  autoritate  ciijusijue  doctoris  haeretici,  illos  inortuos  suscitasse,  dehi^g 
ireiotmasse,  &c. 


A  J^EXXER  TO   BB.  JUDPLETO^:.  2/ 

14.  And  this,  it  seems,  is  "  all  you  have  been  able  to  draw,  from 
.uny  of  the  primitive  writers,  concerning  the  persons  who  were  en- 
/elued  with  the  extraordinary  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost!"  (p.  21.)  Per- 
mit me.  Sir,  to  apply  to  you,  what  was  spoken  on  another  occasion. 

*  Sir,  the  well  is  deep,  a^d  thou  hast  nothing  o  draw-'  neither  sufficient 
skill,  nor  industry  and  application.  Besides,  you  are  resolved  to  draw 
out  of  the  well,  what  was  never  in  it,  and  must  of  course  lose  all 
your  labour. 

III.  1.  You  are,  "  Thirdly,  to  show  the  particular  characters  and 
•opinions  of  those  Fathers  who  attest  these  gifts."  Suffer  me  to  re- 
mind you,  that  you  mentioned  nine  of  these,  Justin,  Iraeneus,  The- 
ophilus,  TertuUian,  Minutius  Felix,  Origen,  Cyprian,  Arnobius,  and 
Lactantius.  You  are  therefore  now  to  show  what  were  the  "  par- 
ticular characters  and  opinions  of  these  Fathers."  Indeed  i  should 
think,  their  opinions  had  some  small  relation  to  the  quesiion.  But 
since  you  think  otherwise,  I  am  prepared  to  hear  you. 

You  premise,  "  That  an  unexceptionable  witness  must  have  both 
.judgment  and  honesty :"  (p.  26  :)  and  then  passing  over  the  apostolic 
Fathers,  (as  supposing  them  on  your  side,)  endeavour  to  show,  that 
these  other  Fathers  had  nehher. 

2.  You  begin  with  Justin  Martyr,  who,  you  say,  "  frequently  af- 
firms, that  the  miraculous  gift  of  expounding  the  Holy  Scriptures,  or 
the  iijysieries  of  God,  was  granted  to  himself,  by  the  special  grace  of 
God."  !  p.  27.)  Upon  whioh  I  observe,  1.  It  has  not  yet  been  agreed 
among  learned  men,  that  declaring  the  mysteries  of  God,  is  the  same 
thing  with  expounding  the  Holy  Scriptures.  2.  It  is  not  clear,  that 
Justin  does  affirm,  his  being  endued  either  with  one  or  the  other. 
At  least,  not  from  the  passages  you  cite.     The  first,  Iherally  thus : 

*  '  He  hath  revealed  to  us  whatsoever  things  we  have  understood  by 
his  grace  from  the  Scriptures  also  :'  the  other,  j  *  I  have  not  any  such 
power ;  but  God  has  given  me  the  grace  to  understand  his  Scrips 
lures.'  Now,  Sir,  by  which  of  these  does  it  appear,  that  Justin 
affirms  he  had  the  miraculous  gift  of  expounding  the  Scriptures  ? 

3.  However,  you  will  affirm  it,  were  it  only  to  have  the  pleasure 
©f  confuting  it.  In  order  to  which  you  recite  three  passages  from 
his  writings,  wherein  he  interprets  Scripture  weakly  enough :  and 
then  add,  f  after  a  strained  compliment  to  Dr.  Grabe,  and  a  mangled 
Iranslation  of  one  of  his  remarks,)  "  His  works  are  but  Ihtle  else 
than  a  wretched  collection  of  interpretations  of  the  same  kind.  Yet 
this  pious  Father  insists,  that  they  were  all  suggested  to  him  from 
heaven."  fp.  30.  *  No;  nehher  the  one  nor  the  other.  Neither  do 
interpretations  of  Scripture  (good  or  bad)  make  the  tenth  part  of  his 
writings  :  nor  does  he  insist,  that  all  those  wiiich  are  found  therein, 
-"  were  suggested  to  him  from  heaven."  This  does  not  follow  from 
any  passa^■e  you  have  cited  yet :  nor  from  his  saying  in  a  particular 
case,  •'  Do  you  think  I  could  have  understood  these  things  in  the 

*  ATrtita}iv\pcv  sv  r}jiiv  rrav'Ja  oaa  Kii  otto  top  ypa(pa>v  Sia  tijs  yapiToi  avry  vcvorjKapcv.  Dialogue, 
yart  2. 

t  OvSf)^ap  iiii'ai'Ci  Ci'oi  roiavin  "«  f'fv,  a^Xd  X"!"''  ""/"*  ^*^  doOi]  ^rot  Cis  -o  ejyrtttcli  rifs  yparftai, 
iK  Ts,    Ibid. 


28  A   LETTEB   TO   DB.  MlDDLETOrs'. 

Scriptures,  if  I  had  not  by  the  will  of  God  received  the  grace  (0 
understand  them  ?" 

4.  However,  now  you  clap  your  wings.  "  What  credit,"  say  you^ 
•'can  be  due  to  this  Father,  in  the  report  of  other  people's  gifts,  whd 
was  so  grossly  deceived,  or  willing  at  least  to  deceive  others,  in  this 
confident  attestation  of  his  own  ?"  The  answer  is  plain  and  obvious. 
It  is  not  clear,  that  lie  attests  his  own  at  all.  Consequently,  as  yet 
his  credit  is  unblemished. 

"  But  he  did  not  understand  Hebrew,  and  gave  a  wrong  derivation 
of  the  Hebrew  word,  Satan."  Allowing  this,  that  he  was  no  good 
etymologist,  his  credit  as  a  witness  may  be  as  good  as  ever. 

5.  But  to  blast  his  credit  for  ever,  you  will  now  reckon  up  all  the 
heresies  which  he  held.  And  first,  "He  beheved  the  doctrine  of  the 
Millennium ;  or,  '  That  all  the  saints  should  be  raised  in  the  flesh, 
and  reign  with  Christ,  in  the  enjoyment  of  all  sensual  pleasures,  for 
a  thousand  years  before  the  general  resurrection."  (p.  31.)  These 
you  mark  as  though  they  were  Justin's  words.  I  take  knowledge 
you  hold,  no  faith  is  to  be  kept  with  heretics  :  and  that  all  means  are 
fair  which  conduce  to  so  good  an  end,  as  driving  the  Christian  heresy 
out  of  the  world. 

It  is  by  this  principle  only  that  I  can  account  for  your  adding, 
"Which  doctrine"  [tliat  of  their  enjoying  all  sensual  pleasures]  "he 
deducts  from  the  testimony  of  the  prophets:  and  of  St.  John  the 
Apostle ;  and  was  followed  in  it  by  the  Fathers  of  the  second  and 
third  centuries." 

The  doctrine,  (as  you  very  well  know,)  which  Justin  "  deduced 
from  the  Prophets  and  the  Apostles,"  and  "  in  which  he  was"  un- 
doubtedly "  followed  by  the  Fathers  of  the  second  and  third  cen- 
turies," is  this : 

The  souls  of  them  who  have  been  martyred  for  the  witness  of  Je- 
sus, and  for  the  word  of  God,  and  who  have  not  worshipped  the  beast, 
neither  received  his  mark,  sliall  live  and  reign  with  Christ  a  thousand 
years.  But  the  rest  of  the  dead  shall  not  live  again,  until  the  thou- 
sand years  are  finished.  Now  to  say,  tliey  believed  this,  is  neither 
more  nor  less  than  to  say,  they  believed  the  Bible. 

6.  The  second  heresy  you  charge  him  with  is  the  believing,  "thai 
those  sows  of  God,  mentioned  Gen.  vi.  4.  of  wliom  it  is  there  said, 
'  They  came  in  unto  the  daughters  of  men,  and  they  bare  children  to 
them  ;'  were  evil  angels."  (p.  32.)  And  I  allow,  he  too  lightly  re- 
ceived this  on  the  testimony  of  the  Jewish  commentators.  But  this 
only  proves,  that  he  was  a  fallible  man  :  not  that  he  was  a  knave ;  or 
that  he  had  not  eyes  and  ears. 

7.  You  charge  him,  thirdly,  with  "  treating  the  spurious  books, 
published  under  the  names  of  the  Sibyl  and  Hystaspes.  with  the  same 
reverence  as  the  prophetic  Scriptures."  (ibid.)  His  words  are, 
•  By  the  power  of  evil  spirits,  it  was  made  death,  to  read  the  books 
of  Hystaspes,  or  of  the  Sibyl,  or  of  the  prophets. '  Well :  how  does 
this  prove,  that  he  "  treated  those  books  with  the  same  reverence  as 
fhe  prophetic  Scriptures  ?" 

But  "  it  is  certain,"  you  say,  "  that  from  this  example  and  autho- 


A    LEl^BR   TO   I»B.  JIIDDLETOy*  Si' 

j.Uy  of  Justin,  they  wepe  held  in  the  highest  venei^tion,  by  the  Fathers 
unci  rulers  of  the  church,  through  all  succeeding  ages."  (ibid.) 

I  do  not  conceive,  it  is  certain.  I  wait  your  proof,  first,  of  the 
tact:  next,  of  the  reason  you  assign  for  it.  The  fact  itself,  that 
"  these  books  were  held  in  the  highest  veneration,  by  the  Fathers  and 
rulers  through  all  succeeding  ages,"  is  in  nowise  proved  by  that  single 
quotation  from  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  (p.  34.)  wherein  he  urges  the 
Heathens  with  the  testimonies  of  their  own  authors,  of  the  Sibyl,  and 
of  Hystaspes.  We  cannot  infer  from  hence,  that  he  himself  "  held 
♦hem  in  the  highest  veneration :"  much  less,  that  all  the  Fathers  did. 
And  as  to  the  reason  you  assign  for  that  veneration,  the  example  and 
authority  of  Justin,  you  cite  no  wrher  of  any  kind,  good  or  bad.  So 
he  that  will  believe  it  may. 

But  "  some"  you  tell  us,  "  impute  the  forging  of  these  books  to 
Justin."  Be  pleased  to  tell  us,  likewise,  who  those  are  ;  and  what 
grounds  they  allege  for  that  imputation.  Till  then  it  can  be  of  no 
signification. 

8.  You  charge  him,  fourthly,  "  With  believing  that  silly  story, 
concerning  the  Septuagint  version  of  the  Old  Testament :  with  say 
ing,  that  he  himself,  \vhen  at  Alexandria,  saw  the  remains  of  the  cells 
in  which  the  translators  were  shut  up  :  and  with  making  a  consider- 
able mistake  in  the  chronology  relating  thereto."  (p.  37.)  And  if  all 
this  be  allowed,  and  over  and  above,  that  he  "  frequently  cites  apocry- 
phal books,  and  cites  the  Scripture  by  memory :"  what  have  you 
gained  toward  the  proof  of  your  grand  conclusion,  that  "  he  was 
either  too  great  a  fool,  or  too  great  a  knave,  to  be  believed  touching  a 
plain  matter  of  fact  ?" 

9.  You  seem  sensible  of  this,  and  therefore  add,  fifthly,  '*  It  will 
be  said,  perhaps,  that  these  instances  shoAV  a  weakness  of  judgment, 
but  do  not  touch  the  credit  of  Justin  as  a  witness  of  fact."  (p.  29.) 
But  can  you  scrape  up  notliing  from  all  the  dunghills  of  antiquity 
that  does  ?  I  dare  say,  you  will  do  your  utmost.  And,  first,  you 
ueply,  "  The  want  of  judgment  alone  may,  in  some  cases,  disqualify 
a  man  from  being  a  good  whness.  Thus  Justin  himself  was  imposed 
upon  by  those  of  Alexandria,  who  showed  him  some  old  ruins  under 
the  name  of  cells. — And  so  he  was  by  those  who  told  him,  there  was 
a  statue  at  Rome,  inscribed  Simoni  Deo  Sancto  ,-"  (p.  40,)  "  whereas 
it  was  really  inscribed,  Semoni  Sanco  Deo  ;  to  an  old  deity  of  the  Sa- 
bines."  "  Now,"  say  you,  "  if  he  was  deceived  in  such  obvious  facts, 
how  much  more  easily  would  he  be  deceived  by  subtle  and  crafty 
impostors."  (p.  41.)  Far  less  easily.  A  man  of  good  judgment 
may  be  deceived  in  the  inscriptions  of  statues  and  points  of  ancient 
history.  But  if  he  has  only  eyes  and  ears,  and  a  small  degree  of 
common  sense,  he  cannot  be  deceived  in  facts  where  he  is  both  an 
eye  and  ear  witness. 

10.  For  a  parting  blow,  you  endeavour  to  prove,  sixthly,  that  Justin 
was  a  knave  as  well  as  a  fool.  To  this  end  you  remark,  "  That  he 
t^harges  the  Jews  with  erasing  three  passages  out  of  the  Greek  bible : 
®ne  whereof  stands  there  still,  and  the  other  two  were  not  expunge<J 
fey  some  Jew,  but  added  by  some  Christian.     Nay,  that  *'  able  cpilie 


30  A   LETTKR   T«   DR.  31IDDLET02i?. 

and  divine,  John  Croius,"  (you  know  when  to  bestow  honourable 
appellations,)  "says,  'Justin  forged  and  published  this  passage,  for 
the  confirmation  of  the  Christian  doctrine,  as  well  as  the  greatest  pari 
of  the  Sibylline  oracles,  and  the  sentences  of  Mercurius.'  " 

With  far  greater  probability  than  John  Croius  asserts,  that  Justin 
forged  these  passages,  a  man  of  candour  would  hope  that  he  read 
them  in  his  copy  (though  incorrect)  of  the  GJreek  bible.  And  till 
you  disprove  this,  or  prove  the  assertion  of  Croius,  you  are  got  not  a 
jot  further  still.  But  notvvhhstanding  you  have  taken  true  pains  to 
blacken  him,  both  with  regard  to  his  morals  and  understanding,  he 
may  still  be  an  honest  man,  and  an  unexceptionable  witness,  as  to 
plain  facts  done  before  his  face. 

11.  You  fall  upon  Irenasus  next,  and  carefully  enumerate  all  the 
mistakes  in  his  wrhings.  As  first,  that  he  held  the  doctrine  of  the 
Millennium,  and  related  a  weak  fancy  of  Papias  concerning  it.  Se- 
condly, that  he  believed  our  Saviour  to  have  lived  fifty  years.  Thirdly* 
that  he  believed  Enoch  and  Elias  were  translated,  and  St.  Paul  caughf 
up  to  that  very  Paradise  from  which  Adam  was  expelled ;  (so  he 
might,  and  all  the  later  Fathers  with  him,  without  being  either  the 
better  or  the  worse.)  Fourthly,  that  he  believed  the  story  concerning 
Ihe  Septuagint  version  :  nay,  and  that  the  Scriptures  were  destroyed 
in  the  Babylonish  captivity,  but  restored  again  after  seventy  years  by 
Esdras,  inspired  for  that  purpose,  (p.  44.)  "  In  this  also,"  (you  say, 
but  do  not  prove)  "  he  was  followed  by  all  the  principal  Fathers  that 
succeeded  him  ;  although  there  is  no  better  foundation  for  it,  than  that 
fabulous  relation  in  the  second  book  of  Esdras."  You  add,  fifthly, 
that  he  believed  that  the  sons  of  God,  who  came  in  to  the  daughters 
of  men,  were  evil  angels.  And  all  the  early  Fathers,  you  are  very 
ready  to  believe,  "  were  drawn  into  the  same  errors,  by  the  authority 
of  the  apocryphal  book  of  Enoch,  cited  by  St.  Jude." 

12.  It  is  not  only  out  of  your  good  will  to  St.  Jude,  or  Irenreus, 
you  gather  up  these  fragments  of  error,  that  nothing  may  be  lost,  but 
also  to  the  whole  body  of  the  ancient  Christians.  "  For  all  those  ab- 
surdities," you  say,  "  were  taught  by  tiie  Fathers  of  those  ages" 
(naturally  implyhig,  by  all  the  Fathers)  "  as  doctrines  of  the  universal 
church  derived  immediately  from  the  Apostles ;  and  thought  so  ne- 
cessary, that  those  who  held  the  contrary,  were  hardly  considered  as 
real  Christians."  Here  I  must  beg  you  to  prove  as  well  as  assert. 
1.  That  all  these  absurdities  of  the  Millennium  in  the  grossest  sense 
of  it,  of  the  age  of  Christ,  of  paradise,  of  the  destruction  of  the 
Scriptures,  of  the  Septuagint  version,  and  of  evil  angels  mixing  with 
women,  were  taught  by  all  the  Fathers  of  those  ages;  2.  That  all 
those  Fathers  taught  these  as  doctrines  of  the  universal  church,  de- 
rived immediately  from  the  Apostles ;  and,  3.  That  they  all  denied' 
those  to  be  real  Christians,  who  held  the  contrary. 

13.  You  next  cite  two  far-fetclied  iiiterpretations  of  Scripture,  and 
a  weak  saying  out  of  the  writings  of  Irenajus.  But  all  three  prove 
MO  more,  than  that  in  these  instances  he  did  not  speak  with  strictness 
of  judgment :  not  that  he  was  incapable  of  knowing  what  he  saw 
with  his  own  eyes,  or  of  truly  relating  it  to  others. 


I 


A   LETTER   TO   DB.  SnDDLETOjS?.  51 

Before  we  proceed  to  what,  with  equal  good  humour  and  impar- 
iialit3%  you  remark  concerning  the  rest  of  these  Fathers,  it  wiJl  be 
proper  to  consider  what  more  is  interspersed  concerning  these  "  in 
the  sequel  of  tliis  argument  " 

14.  And,  first,  you  say,  "Justin  used  an  inconclusive  argument 
for  the  existence  of  the  souls  of  men  after  death."  (p  67.)  It  is 
possible  he  might,  but  whether  it  was  conclusive  or  not,  this  does  not 
atfect  his  moral  character. 

You  say,  secondly,  "  It  was  the  common  opinion  of  all  the  Fa- 
thers, taken  from  the  authority  of  Justin  Martyr,  that  the  dasmons 
wanted  the  fumes  of  the  sacrifices  to  strengthen  them  for  the  enjoy 
ment  of  their  lustful  pleasures."  (p.  69.) 

Sir,  no  man  of  reason  will  believe  this  concerning  one  of  the  Fa- 
thers upon  your  bare  assertion.  I  must,  therefore,  desire  you  to  prove 
by  more  than  a  scrap  of  a  sentence,  1.  That  Justin  himself  held  this 
opinion;  2.  That  he  invented  it ;  3.  That  it  was  the  common  opinion 
of  all  the  Fathers ;  and  4    That  they  all  took  it  on  his  authority. 

15.  You  affirm,  thirdly,  "  He  says,  that  all  devils  yield  and  submh 
to  the  name  of  Jesus :  as  also  to  the  name  of  the  God  of  Abraham. 
Isaac,  and  Jacob."  (p.  85.)     Very  likely  he  may. 

Lastly,  you  cite  a  passage  from  him,  concerning  the  Spirit  of  God 
influencing  the  minds  of  holy  men.  But  neither  does  this  in  any 
measure  affect  his  credit  as  a  witness  of  fact.  Consequently,  after 
all  that  you  "  have  been  able  to  draw,"  either  from  himself,  or  "  any 
of  the  primitive  writers,"  here  is  one  witness  of  unquestionable  credit, 
touching  the  miracles  wrought  in  the  primitive  church ;  touching  the 
subsistence  of  the  extraordinary  gifts  after  the  days  of  the  Apostles, 

16.  But  let  us  come  once  more  to  Irenaeus  ;  for  you  have  not  done 
ivith  him  yet.  "  Forgery,"  you  say,  "  has  been  actually  charged 
upon  Justin,"  (by  John  Croius  and  Dr.  Middleton,)  "and  may  with 
equal  reason  be  charged  on  Irenaeus.  For  what  other  account  can 
be  given  of  his  frequent  appeals  to  apostolical  tradition,  for  the  sup- 
port of  so  many  incredible  doctrines?"  (p.  111.)  Why,  this  very 
natural  one,  that  in  non-essential  points  he  too  easily  followed  the  au- 
thority of  Papias,  a  weak  man,  who,  on  slight  grounds,  believed  many 
trifling  things  to  have  been  said  or  done  by  the  Aposdes.  And,  allow- 
ing all  this,  yet  it  does  not  give  us  so  "  lamentable  an  idea  of  those 
primitive  ages  and  primitive  champions  of  the  Christian  cause." 
(p.  59.) 

The  same  account  may  be  given  of  his  mistake,  concerning  the 
age  of  our  Lord,  (ibid.)  There  is  therefore  as  yet  neither  reason 
nor  any  plausible  pretence  for  laying  forgery  to  his  charge.  And. 
consequently,  thus  far  his  credit,  as  a  witness,  stands  clear  and  un- 
impeached. 

But  you  say.  secondly,  *'  He  was  a  zealous  asserter  of  tradition." 
(p.  61.)  He  might  be  so,  and  yet  might  be  an  honest  man  :  and 
that,  whether  he  was  mistaken  or  not,  in  supposing  Papias  to  have 
been  a  disciple  of  John  the  Apostle."  (p.  64.) 

You  say,  thirdly,  he  supposed,  "that  the  disciples  of  Simon  Ma- 
gus, as  well  as  of  Carpocrates,  used  magical  arts:"  (p.  68,)  "thai 


1^2  A   LE'MnGK    TO    DB.  MIDDLETGX. 

tlie  dead  were  fFcquently  raised  in  his  time :"  (p.  72.)  "  that  the  JewS; 
by  the  name  of  God,  cast  out  devils:"  and  "  that  many  had  erexi 
then  the  gift  of  tongues,  ahhough  he  had  it  not  himself."  (p.  85.)  This 
is  the  whole  of  your  charge  against  Irenaius,  when  summed  up  and 
laid  together.  And  now  let  any  reasonable  person  judge,  whelhej 
all  this  gives  us  the  least  cause  to  question,  either  his  having  sense 
enough  to  discern  a  plain  matter  of  fact,  or  honesty  enough  to  relate 
it.  Here  then  is  one  more  credible  witness  of  miraculous  gifts  after 
the  days  of  the  Apostles, 

18.  What  you  advance  concerning  the  history  of  tradhion,  I  arn 
jieither  concerned  to  defend  nor  to  confute.  Only  ;  must  observe, 
you  forget  yourself  again  where  you  say,  "the  fable  of  the  Millen- 
nium, of  the  old  age  of  Christ,  with  many  more,  were  all  embraced 
by  the  earhest  Fathers."  (p.  64.)  For  modesty's  sake,  Sir,  think  a 
little  before  you  speak,  and  remember  you  yourself  informed  us,  that 
one  of  these  was  never  embraced  at  all,  but  by  one  single  Father  only. 

19.  "  I  cannot,"  you  say,  "  dismiss  this  article,  without  taking  no- 
tice, that  witchcraft  was  universally  believed  through  all  ages  of  the 
primitive  church."  (p.  66.)  This  you  show  by  citations  from  several 
of  the  Fathers :  who  likewise  believed,  as  you  inform  us,  that  "  evil 
spirits  had  power  frequently  to  afflict  either  the  bodies  or  minds  of 
men :  that  they  acted  the  parts  of  the  Heathen  gods,  and  assumed 
the  forms  of  those  who  were  called  from  the  dead.  Now  this  opi- 
nion," say  you,  "  is  not  only  a  proof  of  the  grossest  credulity,  but 
of  that  species  of  it,  which,  of  all  others,  lays  a  man  most  open  to 
imposture."  (p.  70.) 

And  yet  this  opinion,  as  you  know  full  well,  has  its  foundation  not 
only  in  the  histories  of  all  ages,  and  all  nations  throughout  the  habit- 
able world,  even  where  Christianity  never  obtained  :  but  particularly 
in  Scripture :  in  abundance  of  passages  both  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testament :  as  where  the  Israelites  were  expressly  commanded  not 
to  'suffer a  witch  to  live,'  Exod.  xxii.  18  :  where  St.  Paul  number.^ 
witchcraft  with  '  the  works  of  the'  liesh,'  and  ranks  it  with  adulter}" 
and  idolatry.  Gal.  v.  19,  20:  and  where  St.  John  declares,  'without, 
nre  sorcerers,  and  whoremongers,  and  murderers,'  Rev.  xxii.  15. 

That  '  the  gods  of  the  Heathens  are  devils,'  is  declared  in  terms. 
I)y  one  of  those  w^ho  are  styled  inspired  waiters,  1  Cor.  x.  20.  And 
many  conceive  that  another  of  them  gives  us  a  plain  instance  of  their 
'  assuming  the  form  of  those  who  w^ere  called  from  the  dead,'  1  Sam. 
xxviii.  13,  14. 

Of  the  power  of  the  evil  spirits  to  afflict  the  minds  of  men,  none 
can  doubt  who  believe  there  are  any  such  beings.  And  of  their 
power  to  afflict  the  body  we  have  abundant  proof  both  in  the  history 
of  Job,  and  that  of  the  gospel  demoniacs.  I  do  not  mean.  Sir,  to 
accuse  you  of  believing  these  things  :  you  have  shown,  that  you  are 
guiltless  in  this  matter ;  and  that  you  pay  no  more  regard  to  that  anti- 
quated book,  the  Bible,  than  you  do  to  the  second  book  of  Esdras. 
But,  alas  !  The  Fathers  were  not  so  far  enlightened.  And  because 
they  were  bigotted  to  that  old  book,  they,  of  consequence,  held  foi. 
truth,  what  you  assure  us  was  mere  delusio«  and  imposture. 


A   LETTER   TO   BU.  MIBDLETOS.  3o 

20.  Now  to  apply.  "  A  mind,"  you  say,  "  so  totally  possessed  bj 
superstitious  fancies,  could  not  even  suspect  the  pretensions  of  those 
vagrant  jugglers,  who  in  those  primitive  ages  were  so  numerous  and 
so  industriously  employed,  in  deluding  their  fellow-creatures.  Both 
Heathens,  Jews,  and  Christians,  are  all  allowed  to  have  had  such  im- 
postors among  them."  p.  71.)  By  whom.  Sir,  is  this  allowed  of  the 
Christians?  By  whom,  but  Celsus,  was  it  ever  affirmed  of  them? 
Who  informed  you  of  their  growing  so  numerous  ?  And  using  such 
industry  in  their  employment  ?  To  speak  the  plain  truth,  your  mind 
appears  to  be  so  totally  possessed  by  these  vagrant  jugglers,  that  you 
cannot  say  one  word  about  the  primitive  church,  but  they  immediately 
start  up  before  you  ;  though  there  is  no  more  proof  of  their  ever  ex- 
isting, than  of  a  witch's  sailing  in  an  egg-shell. 

21.  You  conclude  this  head  :  "  When  pious  Christians  are  arrived 
to  this  pitch  of  credulity,  as  to  believe  that  evil  spirits,  or  evil  men 
can  work  miracles  in  opposition  to  the  gospel ;  their  very  piety  will 
oblige  them  to  admit  as  miraculous,  whatever  is  pretended  to  be 
wrought  in  defence  of  it."  (p.  71.  Once  more  you  have  spoken 
out :  you  have  shown  without  disguise,  what  you  think  of  St.  Paul, 
and  the  lying  miracles,  2  Thess.  ii.  9,  which  he  (poor  man!)  believed 
evil  spirits  or  evil  men  could  work  in  opposition  to  the  gospel :  and 
of  St.  John,  talking  so  idly  of  him  who  '  doetli  great  wonders,  and 
dcceiveth  them  that  dwell  on  the  earth,'  (even  though  they  were  not 
Christians)  '  by  means  of  those  miracles  which  he  hath  power  to  do,' 
Rev.  xiii.  13,  14.  ^^^ 

22.  Yoii  have  now  finished  the  third  thing  you  proposed,  which 
was,  "  To  show  the  particular  characters  of  the  several  Fathers, 
who  attest,"  that  they  were  eye  and  ear-witnesses  of  the  extraordinary 
gifts  in  the  primitive  church.  You  named  nine  of  these,  Justin  Mar« 
tyr,  Irenaeus,  Theophilus,  Tertullian,  Minutius  Felix,  Origen,  Cyp- 
rian, Arnobius,  and  Lactantius ;  at  the  same  time  observing,  that 
many  other  writers  attest  the  same  thing.  But  let  the  others  stand  by. 
Are  these  good  men  and  true  ?  .  That  is  the  present  question. 

You  say.  No.  And  to  prove  that  these  nine  are  knaves,  bring 
several  charges  against  two  of  them.  These  have  been  answered  at 
large ;  some  of  them  proved  to  be  false ;  some,  though  true,  yet  not 
invalidating  their  evidence. 

But  supposing  we  waive  the  evidence  of  these  two,  here  are  seven 
more  still  to  come.  Oh !  but  you  say,  "If  there  were  twice  seven, 
they  only  repeat  the  words  which  those  have  taught  them." 

Vou  say.  But  how  often  must  you  be  reminded,  that  saying  and 
■proving  are  two  things  ?  I  grant,  in  three  or  four  opinions,  some 
(though  not  all)  of  these  were  mistaken  as  well  as  those  two.  But 
this  by  no  means  proves,  that  they  were  all  knaves  together ;  or  thai 
if  Justin  Martyr  or  Irenaeus  speaks  wrong,  I  am  therefore  to  give  no 
credit  to  the  evidence  of  Theophilus  or  Minutius  Felix. 

23.  You  have,  therefore,  made  a  more  lame  piece  of  work  on  this' 
head,  (if  possible)  than  on  the  preceding.  You  have  promised  great 
things,  and  performed  just  nothing.  You  have  left  above  three  parts' 
In  four  of  your  work  entirely  untouched ;  as  these  two  are  not  a 


'•34  A   liETTER   TO   BR.    iMXDDLETOl?. 

fourth  part  even  of  the  writers  you  have  named,  as  attesting  the  coii' 
tluuance  of  the  extraordinary  gifts  after  the  age  of  the  apostles. 

But  you  have  taught  that  trick  at  least  to  your  vagrant  jugglers^, 
to  supply  the  defect  of  all  other  arguments.  At  every  dead  lift  you 
are  sure  to  play  upon  us  these  dear  creatures  of  your  own  imagina- 
tion. They  are  the  very  streiigth  of  your  battle,  the  tenth  legion. 
Yet  if  a  man  impertinently  calls  for  proof  of  their  existence,  if  he 
comes  close  and  engages  them  hand  to  hand,  they  immediately  vanish 
away. 

IV.  You  are,  in  the  fourth  place,  to  "  review  all  the  several 
kinds  of  miraculous  gifts  which  are  pretended  to  have  been  given  ; 
and  to  observe  from  the  nature  of  each,  how  far  they  may  reasonably 
be  suspected."  p.  72. 

"  These,"  you  say,  "  are,  I.  The  power  of  raising  the  dead  ;  2.  Of 
healing  the  sick  ;  3.  Of  casting  out  devils  ;  4.  Of  prophesying  ;  5. 
Of  seeing  visions;  6.  Of  discovering  the  secrets  of  men;  7.  Of 
expounding  the  Scriptures  ;  8.   Of  speaking  with  tongues  " 

I  had  rather  have  had  "an  account  of  the  miraculous  powers  as 
they  are  represented  to  us  in  the  history  of  the  gospel."  But  that 
account  you  are  not  iaclined  to  give.  So  wc  will  make  the  best  of 
what  we  have. 

Sect.  I.  I.  And,  first,  Astd  "raising  tlic  cload.  Irftnasus  atfirms, 
'  This  was  frequently  performed  on  very  necessary  occasions ;  when 
by  great  fastings  and  the  joint  supplication  of  the  church,  the  spirit 
of  the  deaf^-'.;ierson  returned  into  him,  and  the  man  was  given  back 
to  the  prayers  of  the  saints.'  " 

2.  But  you  object,  "  There  is  not  an  instance  of  this  to  be  found 
in  the  three  first  centuries."  (p.  72.)  I  presume  you  mean,  no  Heatlien 
liistorian  has  mentioned  it,  (for  Christian  historians  were  not.)  I 
answer,  1.  It  is  not  probable  a  Heathen  historian  would  have  related 
such  a  fact,  had  he  known  it.  2.  h  is  equally  improbable,  he  should 
know  it :  seeing  the  Christians  knew  with  whom  they  had  to  do  :  and 
that,  had  such  an  instance  been  mftde  public,  they  would  not  long 
liave  enjoyed  him  who  had  been  given  back  to  their  prayers.  They 
could  not  but  remember  what  had  been  before  ;  when  the  Jev/s 
sought  Lazarus  also  to  kill  him  :  a  very  obvious  reason  why  a  miracle 
of  this  particular  kind,  ought  not  to  have  been  published  abroad  : 
especially,  considering,  3.  That  it  was  not  designed  for  the  conver- 
sion, of  the  Heathens  ;  but  on  occasions  necessary  for  the  good  of  the 
Church,  of  the  Christian  community:  Lastly,  It  was  a  miracle  pro- 
per above  all  others,  to  support  and  confirm  the  Christians,  who  were 
daily  tortured  and  slain,  but  sustained  by  the  hope  of  obtaining  a 
better  resurrection. 

3.  You  object,  secondly,  "  The  Heathens  constantly  affirmed  the 
thing  itself  to  be  impossible."  (p.  73.)  They  did  so.  But  is  it  a 
thing  incredible  with  you,  that  God  should  raise  the  dead  ? 

4.  You  object,  thirdly,  "  That  when  Autolycus,  an  eminent 
Heathen,  scarcely  forty  years  after  this,  said  to  Theophilus,  bishop  of 
Antioch,  « Show  me  but  one  raised  from  the  dead,  that  I  may  seQ 


A  LEtfUR   TO   DB.    MTDDLETOS",  SUi 

yiid  believe  ;'  Theophilus  could  not."  (ibid.)  Supposing  lie  Conk! 
not,  I  do  not  see  that  this  contradicts  the  testimony  of  Irenaeus;  foi' 
lie  does  not  affirm,  (though  you  say,  (p.  72,)  he  does)  that  this  was 
'•  performed,  as  it  were,  in  every  parish,  or  place  where  there  was  ii 
Christian  church,"  He  does  not  affirm,  that  it  was  performed  at 
Antioch  :  probably,  not  in  any  church,  unless  where  a  concurrence 
of  important  circumstances  required  it.  Much  less  does  he  affirm, 
that  the  persons  raised  in  France,  would  be  alive  forty  years  after. 
Therefore,  although  it  be  granted,  1.  That  the  historians  of  that  age 
are  silent ;  2.  That  the  Heathens  said,  the  thing  was  impossible  ;  3. 
That  Theophilus  did  not  answer  the  challenge  of  the  Heathen  Au- 
tolycus  :  all  this  will  not  invalidate  in  any  degree,  the  express  testi- 
mony of  Irenaeus,  or  prove,  that  none  had  been  raised  from  the  dead* 
since  the  days  of  the  apostles. 

Sect.  II.  1.  "  The  next  gift  is,  that  of  healing  the  sick  ;  often  per- 
formed by  anointing  them  with  oil ;  in  favour  of  which,"  as  you  ob- 
serve, "the  ancient  testhnonies  are  more  full  and  express."  (p.  75.) 
But  "  this,"  you  say,  "  might  be  accounted  for  without  a  miracle,  by 
the  natural  efficacy  of  the  oil  itself"  (p.  76.)  I  doubt  not.  Be 
pleased  to  try,  how  many  you  can  cure  thus,  that  are  blind,  deaf^ 
«lumb,  or  paralytic  :  and  experience,  if  not  philosophy,  will  teach 
you,  that  oil  has  no  such  natural  efficacy  as  this. 

2.  Of  this  you  seem  not  insensible  already,  and  therefore  fly  away 
to  your  favourite  supposition,  that  "  they  were  not  cured  at  all :  that 
the  whole  matter  was  a  cheat  from  the  beginning  to  the  end."  But 
by  what  arguments  do  you  evince  this?  The  first  is,  "  The  Hea- 
thens pretended  to  do  the  same.  Nay,  and  managed  tlie  imposiurc 
with  so  much  art,  that  tlie  Christians  could  neither  deny  nor  detect 
it:  but  insisted  always,  that  it  was  performed  by  demons,  or  evil  spi- 
rits." (p.  76.)  But  still  the  Heathens  maintained,  "The  cures  were 
wrought  by  their  gods,  by  jEsculapius  in  particular."  And  where  is 
the  dllference  ?  Seeing,  as  was  observed  before,  the  gods  of  the 
Heathens  were  but  devils. 

3.  But,  you  say,  "  Although  public  monuments  were  erected  in 
proof  and  memory  of  these  cures,  at  the  time  when  they  were  per- 
formed, yet  it  is  certain  all  those  Heathen  miracles  were  pure  forge- 
ries." (p.  79.)  How  is  it  certain  ?  If  you  can  swallow  this  without 
good  proof,  you  are  far  more  credulous  than  [.  I  cannot  believe, 
that  the  whole  body  of  the  Heathens,  for  so  many  generations,  werfc 
utterly  destitute  of  common  sense,  anymore  than  of  common  honesty. 
AVhy  should  you  fix  such  a  charge  on  whole  cities  and  countries '? 
You  could  have  done  no  more,  if  they  had  been  Christians  ! 

4.  But  "  diseases  thought  fatal  and  desperate,  are  oft  surprisingly' 
healed  of  themselves.  And,  therefore,  we  cannot  pay  any  great  re- 
gard to  such  stories,  unless  we  knew  more  precisely  in  this  case  the 
real  bounds  between  nature  and  miracle."  (p.  79.)  Sir,  I  understand 
you  wefi.  The  drift  of  the  argument  is  easily  seen.  It  points  at  the 
Master  as  well  as  his  servants  :  and  tends  to  prove,  that  after  all  this 
talk  about  miraculous  cures,  we  are  not  sure,  there  were  ever  an^ 


36  A  LET^£B  TO  DU,   MIDDIKTOIV. 

in  the  world.  But  it  will  do  no  harm.  For  although  we  grant,  1. 
That  some  recover,  even  in  seemingly  desperate  cases,  and,  2.  That 
we  do  not  know  in  any  case,  the  precise  bounds  between  nature  and 
miracle ;  yet  it  does  not  follow,  therefore,  I  cannot  be  assured,  there 
ever  was  a  miracle  of  healing  in  the  world.  To  explain  this  by 
instance.  I  do  not  precisely  know  how  far  nature  may  go,  in  heal- 
ing, that  is,  in  restoring  sight  to  the  blind.  Yet  this  1  assuredly  know, 
that  if  a  man  born  blind,  is  restored  to  sight  by  a  word,  this  is  not 
nature,  but  miracle.  And  to  such  a  story,  well  attested,  all  reasona- 
ble men  will  pay  the  highest  regard. 

5.  The  sum  of  what  you  have  advanced  on  this  head,  is,  1 .  That 
the  Heathens  themselves  had  miraculous  cures  among  them  ;  2. 
That  oil  may  cure  some  diseases,  by  its  natural  efficacy  ;  and,  3, 
That  we  do  not  know  the  precise  bounds  of  natuie.  All  this  1  allow. 
But  all  this  will  not  prove  that  no  mii'aculous  cures  were  performed, 
either  by  our  Lord  and  his  apostles,  or  by  those  who  lived  in  the 
three  succeeding  centuiies. 

Sect.  III.  1.  The  third  of  the  miraculous  powers  said  to  have 
been  in  the  primitive  church,  is  that  of  casting  out  devils.  The  tes- 
timonies concernini?  this  are  out  of  number,  and  as  plain  as  words 
can  make  them.  To  show,  therefore,  that  all  these  signify  nothing, 
and  that  there  were  never  any  devils  cast  out  at  all,  (nei  her  by  the 
apostles,  nor  since  the  apostles,  for  the  argument  proves  both  or 
neither,)  is  a  task  worthy  of  you.  And  (to  give  you  your  just  praise) 
you  have  here  put  forth  all  your  strength. 

2.  And  yet  I  cannot  but  apprehend,  there  was  a  much  shorter 
way.  Would  it  not  have  been  readier  to  overthrow  all  those  testinio- 
nies  at  a  stroke,  by  proving,  there  never  was  any  Devil  in  the  world  1 
Then  the  whole  affair  of  casting  him  out  had  been  at  an  end. 

But  it  is  in  condescension  to  the  weakness  and  prejudices  of  man- 
kind, that  you  go  less  out  of  the  common  road,  and  only  observe, 
*'  That  those  who  were  said  to  be  possessed  of  the  Devil,  may  have 
been  ill  of  the  falling  sickness."  "  And  their  symptoms,"  you  say. 
"  seem  to  be  nothing  else  but  the  ordinary  symptoms  of  an  epilepsy." 
p.  81. 

If  it  be  asked,  but  were  "  the  speeches  and  confessions  of  the 
devils,  and  their  answering  to  all  questions,  nothing  but  the  ordinary 
symptoms  of  an  epilepsy  ?'  You  take  in  a  second  hypothesis,  and 
account  for  these  "by  the  arts  of  imposture  and  contrivance,  between 
the  persons  concerned  in  the  act."  p.  82. 

But  is  not  this  something  extraordinary,  that  men  in  epileptic  fits, 
should  be  capable  of  so  much  art  and  contrivance  1  To  get  over 
this  difficulty,  we  are  to  suppose  that  art  and  contrivance  were  the 
main  ingredients :  so  that  we  are  to  add  only  quantum  sufficet  of  the 
epilepsy,  and  sometimes  to  leave  it  out  of  the  composition. 

But  the  proof.  Sir,  where  is  the  proof  1  I  want  a  little  of  that  too,- 
Instead  of  this  we  have  only  another  supposition,  "  That  all  the 
fathers  were  either  induced  by  their  prejudices,  to  give  too  hasty 
Credit  to  these  pretended  possessions,  or  carried  away  by  theix 


A   LETTER   TO   DR.    MIDDLETOX. 


4 


peal  to  support  a  delusion,  which  was  useful  to  the  Christian  cause.'" 
p.  81. 

I  grant  they  were  prejudiced  in  favour  of  the  Bible.  But  yet 
we  cannot  fairly  conclude  from  hence,  either  that  they  were  one 
and  all  continually  deceived  by  merely  pretended  possessions : 
or,  that  they  would  all  lie  for  God,  a  thing  absolutely  forbidden  in 
that  book. 

3.  But  "  leaders  of  sects,"  you  say,  "  whatever  principles  they 
pretend  to,  have  seldom  scrupled  to  use  a  commodious  lie.'"  (p.  83.) 
I  observe,  you  are  quite  impartial  here.  You  make  no  exception 
of  age  or  nation.  It  is  all  one  to  you,  whether  your  reader  applies 
this  to  the  son  of  Abdalla,  or  the  son  of  Mary.  And  yet,  Sir,  I 
cannot  but  think  there  was  a  ditference.  I  fancy  the  Jew  was  an 
honester  man  than  the  Arabian  :  and  though  Mahomet  used  many  a 
commodious  lie,  yet  Jesus  of  Nazareth  did  not. 

4.  However,  "  Not  one  of  these  fathers  made  any  scruple  of 
using  the  hyperbolical  style,"  (that  is,  in  plain  English,  of  lying) 
"  as  an  eminent  writer  of  ecclesiastical  history  declares."  (ibid.) 
You  should  have  said  an  impartial  writer.  For  who  would  scruple 
that  character  to  Mr.  Le  Clerc  1  And  yet  I  cannot  take  either  his 
or  your  bare  word  for  this.  Be  pleased  to  produce  a  little  proof 
Hitherto  you  have  proved  absolutely  nothing  on  the  head,  but  (as 
your  manner  is)  taken  all  for  granted. 

5.  You  next  relate  that  famous  story  taken  from  Tertullian.  "  A 
woman  went  to  the  theatre,  and  returned  possessed  with  a  devil. 
When  the  unclean  spirit  was  asked,  how  he  dared  to  assault  a 
Christian  ?  He  answered,  I  found  her  on  my  own  ground."  (p.  83.) 
After  relating  another,  (which  you  endeavour  to  account  for  natu- 
rally,) you  intimate,  that  this  was  a  mere  lie  of  Tertullian's.  But 
how  is  that  proved  1  Why,  "  Tertullian  was  an  utter  enemy  to 
plays  and  public  shows  in  the  theatre."  He-  was  so.  But  can 
we  infer  from  thence,  that  he  was  an  utt^r  enemy  to  common 
honesty  1 

6.  You  add,  "  The  fathers  themselves  own,  that  even  the  Jews, 
yea  and  the  Heathens,  cast  out  devils."  (p.  84.)  "  Now  it  will  be 
granted,  that  these  Jewish  and  Heathen  exorcists  were  mere  cheats 
and  impostors.  But  the  fathers  believed,  they  really  cast  them  out. 
Now  if  they  could  take  their  tricks  for  the  effects  of  a  supernatu- 
ral power,  well  might  they  be  deceived  by  their  own  impostors. 
Or,  they  might  think  it  convenient  to  oppose  one  cheat  to  another." 
(p.  87,  88.) 

"  Deceived,"  say  you,  "  by  their  impostors  ?'  Why  I  thought 
they  were  the  very  men  who  set  them  to  work !  Who  opposed  one 
cheat  to  another.  Apt  scholars,  who  acted  their  part  so  well,  as 
even  to  deceive  their  masters !  But  whatever  the  Heathen  were, 
we  cannot  grant,  that  all  the  "  Jewish  exorcists  were  impostors." 
Whether  the  Heathens  cast  out  devils  or  not,  it  is  sure  the  sons  of  the 
Jews  cast  them  out.  I  mean,  upon  supposition,  that  Jesus  of  Nazaretl 
cast  them  out :  which  is  a  point  not  here  to  be  disputed. 

Vol.  9.— E 


38  A   LETTER   TO   DB.    ailDDlETOJf, 

7.  But  "it  is  very  hard  to  believe  what  Origen  declares,  that  ths 
devils  used  to  possess  and  destroy  cattle."  You  might  have  said, 
what  Matthew  and  Mark  declare,  concerning  the  herd  of  swine. 
And  yet  we  shall  find  you  by  and  by  believing  far  harder  things 
than  this. 

Before  you  subjoined  the  silly  story  of  Hilarian  and  his  camel, 
you  should,  in  candour,  have  informed  your  reader,  that  it  is  dis- 
puted, whether  the  life  of  Hilarian  was  written  by  St.  Jerome  or  not ! 
But  be  it  as  it  may,  I  have  no  concern  with  either.  For .  they  did 
not  live  within  the  three  first  ages. 

8.  1  know  not  what  you  have  proved  hitherto,  though  you  have 
affirmed  many  things,  and  intimated  more.  But  now  we  come  to  the 
strength  of  the  cause,  contained  in  your  five  observations. 

You  observe,  first,  "  That  all  the  primitive  accounts  of  casting 
out  devils,  though  given  by  different  fathers,  and  in  different  ages, 
yet  exactly  agree  with  regard  to  all  the  main  circumstances."  (p. 
92.)  And  this  you  apprehend  to  be  a  m.ark  of  imposture.  "  It 
looks,"  you  say,  "  as  if  they  copied  from  each  other !"  Now  a 
vulgar  reader  would  have  imagined,  that  an}  single  account  of  this 
kind  must  be  rendered  much  more  (not  less)  credible,  by  parallel 
accounts  of  what  many  had  severally  seen,  at  different  times,  and  in 
different  places. 

9.  You  observe,  secondly,  "  That  the  persons  thus  possessed, 
were  called,  Efyxs-^tf^veoi,  ventriloquists  ;"  (some  of  them  were) 
"  because  they  were  generally  believed  to  speak  out  of  the  belly." 
(ibid.)  "  Now  there  are  at  this  day,"  you  say,  "  those  who  by  art 
and  practice  can  speak  in  the  same  manner.  If  we  suppose  then 
that  there  were  artists  of  this  kind  among  the  ancient  Christians, 
how  easily,  by  a  correspondence  between  the  ventriloquist  and  the 
exorcist,  might  they  delude  the  most  sensible  of  their  audience  1" 

But  what  did  the  ventriloquist  do  with  his  epilepsy  in  the  mean 
time  ?  You  must  not  let  it  go.  Because  many  of  the  circumstances 
wherein  all  these  accounts  agree,  cannot  be  tolerably  accounted  for 
without  it.  And  yet  how  will  you  make  these  two  agree  ?  It  is  a 
point  worthy  your  serious  consideration. 

But  cheats  doubtless  they  were,  account  for  it  who  can.  Yet  it  is 
strange,  none  of  the  Heathen  should  find  them  out :  that  the  impos- 
ture should  remain  quite  undiscovered  till  fourteen  hundred  years 
after  the  impostors  were  dead  !  He  must  have  a  very  large  faith, 
who  can  beheve  this :  who  can  suppose,  that  not  one  of  all  those 
impostors,  should  either  through  inadvertence,  or  in  the  midst  of 
tortures  and  death,  have  once  intimated  any  such  thing. 

10.  You  observe,  thirdly,  "  That  many  demoniacs  could  not  be 
cured  by  all  the  power  of  the  exorcists,  and  that  the  cures  which 
were  pretended  to  be  wrought  on  any,  were  but  temporary  ;  were 
but  the  cessation  of  a  particular  fit,  or  access  of  the  distemper. 
This,"  you  say,  "  is  evident  from  the  testimony  of  antiquity  itself, 
and  may  be  clearly  collected  from  the  method  of  treating  them  in 
the  ancient  church,"  p.  93. 


4 
A    LETTBB   TO   DR.    MIDDLETON.  39 

Sir,  you  are  the  most  obliging  disputant  in  the  world :  for  you 
continually  answer  your  own  arguments.  Your  last  observation 
confuted  all  that  you  had  advanced  before.  And  now  you  are  so 
kind  as  to  confute  that.  For  if,  after  all,  these  demoniacs  were  real 
epileptics,  and  that  in  so  high  a  degree  as  to  be  wholly  incurable,  what 
becomes  of  their  art  and  practice  ]  And  of  the  very  good  corres- 
pondence between  the  ventriloquist  and  the  exorcist  1 

Having  allowed  you  your  supposition  just  so  long,  as  may  suffice 
to  confute  yourself,  I  must  now  observe,  it  is  not  true.  For  all  that 
•'  is  evident  from  the  testimony  of  antiquity"  is  this  :  that  although 
many  demoniacs  were  wholly  delivered,  yet  some  were  not,  parti- 
cularly in  the  third  century :  but  continued  months  or  years,  with 
only  intervals  of  ease,  before  they  were  entirely  set  at  liberty. 

11.  You  observe,  fourthly,  "  That  great  numbers  of  demoniacs 
subsisted  in  those  early  ages,  whose  chief  habitation  was  in  a  part  of 
the  church,  where,  as  in  a  kind  of  hospital,  they  were  under  the 
care  of  the  exorcists."  (p.  94.)  "  Which  will  account  for  the  con- 
fidence of  those  challenges  made  to  the  Heathens  by  the  Christians, 
to  come  and  see  how  they  could  drive  the  devils  out  of  them,  while 
they  kept  such  numbers  of  them  in  constant  pay  :  always  ready  for 
the  show  ;  tried  and  disciplined  by  your  exorcists  to  groan  and  howl, 
and  give  proper  answers  to  all  questions,"  p.  95. 

So  now  "  the  correspondence  between  the  ventriloquist  and  the 
exorcist"  is  grown  more  close  than  ever  !  But  the  misfortune  is, 
this  observation  likewise  wholly  overthrows  that  which  went  before 
it.  For  if  all  the  groaning,  and  howling,  and  other  symptoms,  were 
no  more  than  what  they  "  were  disciplined  to  by  their  exorcists," 
(p.  95  ; !  then  it  cannot  be,  that  "  many  of  them  could  not  possibly 
be  cured  by  all  the  power  of  those  exorcists,"  (p.  92.)  What ! 
could  they  not  possibly  be  taught  to  know  their  masters  1  And  to 
what  end  as  well  as  when  to  begin  the  show  ?  One  would  think, 
that  the  cures  wrought  upon  these  might  have  been  more  than  tem- 
porary. Nay,  it  is  surprising,  that  while  they  had  such  numbers  of 
them,  they  should  ever  suffer  the  same  person  to  show  twice. 

12.  You  observe,  fifthly,  "That  whereas  this  power  of  casting 
out  devils,  had  hitherto  been  in  the  hands  only  of  the  meaner  part  of 
the  laity :  (that  wants  proof)  it  was,  about  the  year  367,  put  under 
the  direction  of  the  clergy ;  it  being  then  decreed  by  the  counsel  of 
Laodicea,  that  none  should  be  exorcists  but  those  appointed  (or  or- 
dained) by  the  bishop.  But  no  sooner  was  this  done,  even  by  those 
who  favoured  and  desired  to  support  it,  than  the  gift  itself  graduallj 
decreased  and  expired."  p.  95. 

You  here  overthrow  not  only  your  immediately  preceding  obser- 
vation, (as  usual)  but  likewise  what  you  have  observed  elsewhere, 
"  That  the  exorcists  began  to  be  ordained  about  the  middle  of  the 
third  century."  If  so,  what  need  of  decreeing  it  now,  above  a  hun- 
dred years  after  1  Again,  if  the  exorcists  were  ordained  a  hundred 
years  before  this  council  sat,  what  change  was  made  by  the  decree 
of  the  cOy  cil  1  Or  how  came  the  power  of  casting  out  devils  to  cease 


40  A   LETTEK   TO  DR.  MIDDLETOS- 

upon  it  1  You  say,  the  bishops  "  still  favoured  and  desired  to  6uppX)i'l 
it."  Why  then  did  they  not  support  it  1  It  must  have  been  they  (not 
the  poor  exorcists,  who  w^ere  but  a  degree  above  sextons)  who  had 
hitherto  "  kept  such  numbers  of  them  in  pay."  What  was  become 
of  them  now  ?  Were  all  the  groaiiers  and  howlers  dead  1  And  no 
more  to  be  procured  for  money  ?  Or  rather,  did  not  the  bishops^ 
think  you,  grow  covetous  as  they  grew  rich,  and  so  kept  fewer  and 
fewer  of  them  in  pay,  till  at  length  the  whole  business  dropped  ? 

13.  These  are  your  laboured  objections  against  the  great  promise 
of  our  Lord,  Li  my  name  shall  they  cast  out  devils  :  whereby  (to  make 
sure  work)  you  strike  at  him  and  his  apostles,  just  as  much  as  at  the 
primitive  Fathers.  But  by  a  strange  jumble  of  ideas  in  your  head, 
you  would  prove  so  much  that  you  prove  nothing.  By  attempting  to 
show  all,  who  claimed  this  power,  to  be  at  once  both  fools  and  knaves, 
you  have  spoiled  your  whole  cause,  and,  in  the  event,  neither  shown 
them  to  be  one  nor  the  other  :  as  the  one  half  of  your  argument  all 
along  just  serves  to  overthrow  the  other.  So  that  after  all,  the 
ancient  testimonies  touching  this  gift,  remain  firm  and  unshaken. 

Sect.  IV.  1.  You  told  us  above,  That  "the  fourth  miraculous  gift 
was  that  of  prophesying,"  tiie  fifth  of  "  seeing  visions,"  the  sixth  of 
^'discovering  the  secrets  of  men,"  (p.  72.)  But  here  you  jumble 
ihem  all  together,  telling  us,  "  The  next  miraculous  gift  isthat  of  pro- 
phetic visions,  and  ecstatic  trances,"  (ecstatic  ecsta-cies  you  might  have 
said,)  "and  the  discovery  of  men's  hearts."  (p.  96.)  But  why  do 
you  thrust  all  three  into  one  ?  Because,  you  say,  these  seem  to  be  the 
fruit  of  one  spirit.  Most  certainly  they  are,  whether  it  was  the 
sphit  of  truth,  or  (as  you  suppose)  the  spirit  of  delusion. 

2.  However,  it  is  the  second  of  these  on  which  you  chiefly  dwell, 
(the  fifth  of  those  you  before  enumerated,)  taking  but  little  notice  oi 
th"  fourth,  "  foretelling  thhigs  to  come,"  and  none  at  all  of  the  sixths 
^'  discovering  the  secrets  of  men."  The  testimonies  therefore  for 
these  remain  in  full  force,  as  you  do  not  even  attempt  to  invalidate 
them.  With  regard  to  "visions  or  ecstacies,"  you  observe,  first,  That 
TertuUian  calls  testacy,  "a  temporary  loss  of  senses."  (p.  97.)  It 
was  so,  of  the  outward  senses,  which  were  then  locked  up.  You 
observe,  secondly,  That  "  Suidas"  (a  very  primitive  writer,  who  lived 
between  eight  and  nine  hundred  years  after  TertuUian  !)  "  says.  That 
of  all  the  kinds  of  madness,  that  of  the  poets  and  prophets  was  alone 
to  be  wished  for."  I  am  at  a  loss  to  know  what  this  is  brought  to 
prove.  The  question  is,  were  there  visions  in  the  primitive  church  1 
You  observe,  thirdly,  that  Philo  the  Jew  says,  (I  literally  translate 
his  words,  which  you  do  not,  for  it  would  not  answer  your  purpose,) 
"  When  divine  light  shines,  the  human  sets ;  but  when  that  sets,  this 
rises.  This  uses  to  befall  the  prophets,"  (p.  98.)  Well,  Sir,  and 
what  is  this  to  the  question  1  Why,  "  from  these  testimonies,"  you 
say,  "we  may  collect,  that  the  vision  or  ecstacy  of  the  primitive 
church  was  of  the  same  kind  with  that  of  the  Delphic  Pytbia,  or  the 
Cuiiiaean  Sibyl." 

Well  collected  indeed  !  But  I  desire  a  little  better  testimony,  thasi 


A    LETTEn    TO  DR.   MIDDLETON.  4 

either  that  of  Philo  the  Jew,  or  Suidas,  a  lexicographer  of  the  ele- 
venth century,  before  I  behevethis.  How  little  Tertullian  is  to  be 
regarded  on  this  head,  you  yourself  show  in  the  very  next  page. 

3.  You  say,  fourthly,  "•  Montanus  and  his  associates  were  the 
authors  of  these  trances.  They  first  raised  this  spirit  of  enthusiasm 
in  the  church,  and  acquired  great  credit  by  their  visions  and  ecsta- 
cies."  Sir,  you  forget ;  they  did  not  raise  this  spirit,  but  rather  Joel 
and  St.  Peter  ;  according  to  whose  words  the  young  men  saw  visionS) 
before  Montanus  was  born. 

You  observe,  fifthly,  How  Tertullian  was  "  imposed  upon  by  the 
ecstatic  craft  of  visionaries,"  (p.  99,)  and  then  fall  upon  Cyprian  with 
all  your  might :  your  objections  to  whom  we  shall  now  consider. 

And,  first,  you  lay  it  down  as  a  postulatum,  that  he  was  "  fondol 
power  and  episcopal  authority."  I  cannot  grant  this,  Sir.  I  must 
have  some  proof;  else  this,  and  all  you  infer  from  it,  will  go  for 
nothing. 

You  say,  secondly,  "  in  all  questionable  points  of  doctrine  or  dis- 
cipline, which  he  had  a  mind  to  introduce  into  the  Christian  worship, 
we  find  him  constantly  appealing  to  the  testimony  of  visions  and  di- 
vine revelations.  Thus  he  says  to  Ccecilius,  that  he  was  divinely  ad- 
monished to  mix  water  with  wine  in  the  sacrament,  in  order  to  render 
it  effectual." 

You  set  out  unhappily  enough.  For  this  can  never  be  a  proof  of 
Cyprian's  appealing  to  visions  and  revelations  in  order  to  "  introduce 
questionable  points"  of  doctrine  or  discipline  "  into  the  Christian 
worship:"  because  this  point  was  unquestionable,  and  could  not 
then  be  "  introduced  into  the  Christian  worship,"  having  had  a  con- 
stant place  therein,  as  you  yourself  have  showed,  (Introd.  Disc.  p. 
57,)  at  least  from  the  time  of  Justin  Martyr.  Indeed,  neither  Jus- 
tin nor  Cyprian  use  those  words,  fn  order  to  render  it  effectual.  They 
are  an  ingenious  aad  honest  addition  of  your  own,  in  order  to  make 
something  out  of  nothing. 

5.  I  observe  you  take  much  the  same  liberty  in  your  next  quota- 
tion from  Cyprian.  "  He  threatens,"  you  say,  "  to  execute,  '  what 
he  was  ordered  to  do  against  them  in  vision.'"  (p.  102.)  Here  also 
the  last  words,  in  a  vision,  are  an  improvement  upon  the  text. 
Cyprian's  words  are,  /  ivill  use  that  admonition  which  the  Lord  com- 
mands me  to  use.*  But  neither  was  this  in  order  to  introduce  any 
"  questionable  point,"  either  of  doctrine  or  discipline  ;  no  more  than 
his  "using  the  same  threat  to  Pupianus,"  who  had  spoken  ill  of  him 
and  left  his  communion. 

6.  You  go  on,  "  He  says  likewise,  he  was  admonished  of  God,  to 
ordain  one  Numidicus,  a  confessor,"  (p.  103,)  "  who  had  been  left 
for  dead,  half  burnt,  and  buried  in  stones."  (p.  104.)  True,  but 
what  "  questionable  point  of  doctrine"  or  discipline  did  he  introduce 
hereby  1  Or  by  ordaining  Celerinus  :  "who  was  over-ruled  and 
compelled  by  a  divine  vision  to  accept  that  office."     So  you  affirm 

*  Utar  ea  admoaitione,  qua  me  Dominus  uti  jubet.     Epist.  9. 
E  2 


42  A    LETTER    TO    DR.  MIDDLETOJT. 

Cyprian  says.  But  Cyprian  says  it  not ;  at  least,  not  in  those  wOrd^ 
which  you  cite  in  the  margin  ;  which  Hterally  translated,  run  thus,  / 
recommend  to  you  Celerinus,  joined  to  our  clergy^  not  by  human  suf' 
frage,  but  by  the  divine  favour.* 

"  In  another  letter,  speaking  of  Aurelius,  whom  he  had  ordained 
a  reader,  he  says  to  his  clergy  and  people,  '  In  ordaining  clergy,  my 
dearest  brethren,  I  use  to  consult  you  first — But  there  is  no  need  to 
wait  for  human  testimonies,  when  the  divine  suffrage  has  been  al- 
ready signified." 

An  impartial  man  would  wonder  what  you  could  infer  from  these 
five  passages  put  together.  Why,  by  the  helj)  of  a  short  postulatum^ 
"  He  was  fond  of  power,"  you  have  as  much  ground  to  say,  He 
teas  fond  of  bloodshed;)  you  will  make  it  plain,  "This  was  all  a  trick 
to  enlarge  his  episcopal  authority."  But  as  that  postulatum  is  not 
allowed,  you  have  all  your  work  to  begin  again. 

7.  Hitherto  then  the  character  of  Cyprian  is  unhurt ;  but  now 
you  are  resolved  to  blow  it  up  at  once.  So  you  proceed,  "The 
most  memorable  effect  of  any  of  his  visions  was  his  flight  from  his 
church  in  the  time  of  persecution."  (p.  104.)  "  He  affirms,  that  he 
was  commanded  to  retire  by  a  special  revelation  from  heaven.  Yet 
this  plea  was  a  mere  fiction,  contrived  to  quiet  the  scandal  which 
was  raised  by  his  flight :  and  is  confuted  by  himself,  where  he  de- 
clares, it  was  the  advice  of  TertuUus  which  prevailed  with  him  to 
withdraw."  p.  105. 

You  here  charge  Cyprian  with  "  confuting  himself,"  in  saying,, 
"  He  withdrew  by  the  advice  of  Tertullus ;"  whereas  he  "  before 
affirmed,  that  he  was  commanded  to  retire  by  a  special  revelation 
from  heaven."  Indeed  he  had  not :  there  is  no  necessity  at  all  for 
putting  this  construction  upon  those  words,  "  The  Lord  who  com- 
manded me  to  retire  ;"  which  may  without  any  force  be  understood 
of  the  written  command,  '  When  they  persecute  }ou  in  this  city, 
flee  ye  into  another,'  (Matt.  x.  23.)  It  is  not  therefore  clear,  that 
this  plea  of  "  special  revelation"  was  ever  advanced.  And  if  it  was 
advanced,  it  still  remains  to  be  proved  that  "  it  was  nothing  else  but 
a  mere  fiction." 

8.  Your  citing  his  editor  here,  obliges  me  to  add  a  remark,  for 
which  you  give  continual  occasion.  If  either  Rigalt,  Mr.  Dodwell, 
Dr.  Grabe,  Mr.  Thirlby,  or  any  editor  of  any  of  the  Fathers,  ever 
drops  an  expression  to  the  disadvantage  of  the  author  whom  he  pub- 
lishes or  illustrates,  this  you  account  so  much  treasure,  and  will 
surely  find  a  time  to  expose  it  to  public  view.  And  all  these  pas- 
sages you  recite  as  demonstration.  These  are  doubtless  mere  ora- 
cles :  although  when  the  same  person  speaks  in  favour  of  the  Fa- 
ther, his  authority  is  not  worth  a  straw.  But  you  have  "  none  oi 
those  arts  which  are  commonly  employed  by  disputants  to  palliate  a 
bad  cause  !"     Pref.  p.  31. 

9.  What  you  relate  of  Dionysius,  bishop  of  Alexandria,  you  have 

*  Non  humana  sufTragatione,  sed  divina  dignatione,  conjunctum.     Epist.  3^ 


A  LETTEB   TO  PR.  MIDDLETON.  43* 

not  from  himself,  but  only  from  one  who  lived  nearly  a  hundred 
years  after  Dionysius  was  dead.  Therefore  he  is  not  at  all  account- 
able for  it :  as  neither  am  I  for  any  vision  of  St.  Jerome.  But  I  am 
concerned  in  the  consequence  you  draw  from  it :  "  if  this  was  a  fic- 
tion, so  were  Cyprian's  too."  That  will  not  follow.  Many  objec- 
tions may  lie  against  the  one,  which  have  no  place  with  regard  to  the 
other. 

10.  You  now  bring  forth  your  grand  discovery,  that  "all  the  vi- 
sions" of  those  days  "  were  contrived,  or  authorized  at  least,  by  the 
leading  men  of  the  church.  For  they  were  all  applied,  either,  1.  To 
excuse  the  conduct  of  particular  persons,  in  some  instances  of  it 
liable  to  censure  ;  or,  2.  To  enforce  some  doctrine  or  discipline 
pressed  by  some,  but  not  relished  by  others  ;  or,  3.  To  confirm  things 
not  only  frivolous,  but  sometimes  even  superstitious  and  hurtful." 
(p.  109.)  Well,  Sir,  here  is  the  proposition.  But  where  is  the 
proof?  I  hope  we  shall  have  it  in  your  next  Free  Inquiry  :  and  that 
you  will  then  give  us  a  few  instances  of  such  applications,  from  the 
writers  of  the  three  first  centuries, 

11.  Being  not  disposed  to  do  this  at  present,  you  fall  again  upon 
the  poor  "  heretic  Montanus :  who  first  gave  a  vogue"  (as  you 
phrase  it)  "to  visions  and  ecstacies  in  the  Christian  church."  (p.  110.) 
So  you  told  us  before.  But  we  cannot  believe  it  yet ;  because  Peter 
and  Paul  tell  us  the  contrary. 

Indeed  you  do  not  now  mention  Montanus,  because  it  is  any  thing 
to  the  question,  but  only  to  make  way  for  "  observing,"  that  those 
who  wrote  against  him,  "  employed  such  arguments  against  his  pro- 
phecy, as  shake  the  credit  of  all  prophecy.  For  Epiphanus  makes 
this  the  very  ciiterion  between  a  true  and  a  false  prophet,  '  That  the 
true  had  no  ecstacies,  constantly  retained  his  senses,  and  with  firm- 
ness of  miud  apprehended  and  uttered  the  divine  oracles.' "  Sir,, 
have  you  not  mistook  ?  Have  you  not  transcribed  one  sentence  in 
the  margin,  and  translated  another?  That  sentence  which  stands 
in  your  margin  is  this,  "  When  there  was  need,  the  saints  of  God 
among  the  prophets  prophesied  all  things  with  the  true  spirit,  and 
with  a  sound  understanding  and  reasonable  mind."  Now  it  is 
difficult  to  find  out  how  this  comes  to  "  shake  the  credit  of  all  pro- 
phecy." 

12.  Why  thus,  "  Before  the  Montanists  had  brought  those  ecsta- 
cies into  disgrace,  the  prophecy  of  the  orthodox  too  was  exerted  in 
ecstacy.  And  so  were  the  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament,  ac- 
cording to  the  current  opinion  of  earlier  days."  p.  111. 

That  this  was  then  the  "  current  opinion,"  you  bring  three  cita- 
tions to  })rove.  But  if  you  could  cite  three  Fathers  more  during  the 
three  first  centuries,  "  expressly  affirming,"  that  the  prophets  were 
all  out  of  their  senses,  I  would  not  take  their  word.  For  though  I 
take  most  of  the  Fathers  to  have  been  wise  and  good  men,  yet  I 
know  none  of  them  were  infallible.  But  do  even  these  three  affirm 
if?  No :  not  one  of  them,  at  least  in  the  words  you  have  cited. 
From  Athenagoras  you  cite  only  part  of  a  sentence,  which,  trans- 


14  A    LETTER   TO    DR.  MIDDLETON. 

lated  as  literally  as  it  will  well  bear,  runs  thus,  "  Who,  in  an  ecstacy 
of  their  own  thoughts,  being  moved  by  the  Divine  Spirit,  spoke  the 
things  with  which  they  were  inspired,  even  as  a  piper  breathes  into  a 
pipe."  Does  Athenagoras  "  expressly  atfirm"  in  these  words,  that 
the  prophets  were  "  transported  out  of  their  senses  1"  1  hope.  Sir, 
you  do  not  understand  Greek.  If  so,  you  show  here  only  a  little 
harmless  ignorance. 

13.  From  Justin  Martyr  also  you  cite  but  part  of  a  sentence. 
He  speaks  (very  nearly)  thus  :  "  That  the  Spirit  of  God,  descend- 
ing from  heaven,  and  using  righteous  men,  as  the  quill  strikes  the 
harp  or  lyre,  may  reveal  unto  us  the  knowledge  of  divine  and  hea- 
venly things."  And  does  Justin  expressly  affirm  in  these  words,  that 
all  the  prophets  were  "  transported  out  of  their  senses  V 

Tertullian's  words  are,  "  A  man  being  in  the  spirit,  especially 
when  he  beholds  the  glory  of  God,  must  needs  lose  sense."*  Now 
as  it  is  not  plain,  that  he  means  hereby  lose  his  understanding,  (it 
being  at  least  equally  probable,  that  he  intends  no  more  than  losing, 
for  the  time,  the  use  of  his  outward  senses,)  neither  can  it  be  said, 
that  Tertullian  expressly  affirms,  "  The  prophets  were  all  out  of 
their  senses."  Therefore  you  have  not  so  much  as  one  Father  to 
vouch  for  what  you  say  was  "  the  current  opinion  in  those  days." 

14.  I  doubt  uot  but  all  men  of  learning  will  observe  a  circum- 
stance, which  holds  throughout  all  your  quotations.  The  strength 
of  your  argument  constantly  lies  in  a  loose  and  paraphrastical  man- 
ner of  translating.  The  strength  of  mine  lies  in  translating  all  in 
the  most  close  and  literal  manner ;  so  that  closeness  of  translation 
strengthens  mine  in  the  same  proportion  as  it  weakens  your  argu- 
ments :  a  plain  proof  of  what  you  elsewhere  observe,  that  you  use 
'<  no  subtle  refinements  or  forced  constructions  !"  pref.  p.  32. 

15.  But  to  return  to  Cyprian.  "1  cannot  forbear,"  you  say^ 
"relating  two  or  three  more  of  his  wonderful  stories."  (p.  112.) 
"  The  first  is,  A  man  who  had  denied  Christ  was  presently  struck 
dumb  :  the  second,  A  woman  who  had  done  so  was  seized  by  an 
unclean  spirit,  and  soon  after  died  in  great  anguish  :  the  third,  of 
which  he  says  he  was  an  eye-witness,  is  this :  The  heathen  magis- 
trates gave  to  a  Christian  infant,  part  of  what  had  been  offered  to 
an  idol.  When  the  deacon  forced  the  consecrated  wine  on  this 
child,  it  was  immediately  seized  with  convulsions  and  vomiting  :  as 
was  a  woman  who  had  apostatized,  upon  taking  the  consecrated 
elements."  (p.  113.)  The  other  two  relations  Cyprian  does  not 
affirm  of  his  own  personal  knowledge,  p.  115. 

"  Now  what  can  we  think,"  say  you,  "  of  these  strange  stories, 
but  that  they  were  partly  forged,  partly  dressed  up  in  this  tragical 
form,  to  support  the  discipline  of  the  church  in  these  times  of  dan- 
ger and  trial  ?'  p.  115. 

Why,  many  will  think,  that  some  of  them  are  true,  even  in  the 
manner  they  are  related  :  and  that  if  any  of  them  are  not,  Cyprian 

*  Necesse  est,  excidat  sensu. 


A  LETTER  TO  DR.    IHIDDLETON.  45 

• 

thought  they  were,  and  related  them  in  the  sincerity  of  his  heart. 
Nay,  perhaps  some  will  think,  that  the  wisdom  of  God  might,  "  in 
those  times  of  danger  and  trial,'*  work  things  of  this  kind,  lor  that 
Very  end,  "to  support  the  discipline  of  the  church."  And  till  you 
show  the  falsehood,  or  at  least  the  improbability  of  this,  Cyprian's 
character  stands  untainted  :  not  only  as  a  man  of  sense,  (which  you 
yourself  allow,)  but  likewise  of  eminent  integiity :  and  consequently, 
it  IS  beyond  dispute,  that  visions,  the  fifth  miraculous  gift,  remained 
in  the  church  after  the  days  of  the  apostles. 

Sect.  V.  1.  The  sixth  of  the  miraculous  gifts  which  you  enu- 
merated above,  namely,  the  discernment  of  spirits,  you  just  name,  and 
then  entirely  pass  over.  The  seventh  is,  that  of  expounding  the 
Scriptures.  You  tack  to  it,  "or  the  mysteries  of  Goi  ,"'  (p.  116.) 
But  inasmuch  as  it  is  not  yet  agreed  (as  it  was  intimated  above) 
whether  this  be  the  same  gift,  it  may  just  as  well  be  left  out. 

2.  Now  as  to  this,  you  say,  "  There  is  no  trace  of  it  to  be  found, 
since  the  days  of  the  apostles.  For  even  in  the  second  and  third 
centuries,  a  most  senseless  and  extravagant  method  of  expounding 
them  prevailed.  For  which,  when  we  censure  any  particular  father, 
his  apologists  with  one  voice  allege,  "  This  is  to  be  charged  to  the 
age  wherein  he  lived,  which  could  not  relish  or  endure  any  better." 

I  doubt  much,  whether  you  can  produce  one  single  apologist  for 
any  "  ridiculous  comment  on  sacred  writ,"  who  any  where  "  alleges, 
that  the  second  or  third  century  could  not  relish  oi  endure  any 
better."  But  if  they  were  all  to  say  this  with  one  voice,  yet  no  rea- 
sonable man  could  believe  them.  For  it  is  notoriously  contrary  to 
matter  of  fact.  Ft  may  be  allowed,  that  some  of  these  fathers,  being 
afraid  of  too  literal  a  way  of  expounding  the  Scriptures,  leaned 
sometimes  to  the  other  extreme.  Yet  nothing  can  be  more  unjust 
than  to  infer  from  hence,  "  That  the  age  in  which  they  lived,  could 
not  relish  or  endure  any  but  senseless,  extravagant,  enthusiastic,  ri- 
diculous comments  on  sacred  writ." 

Will  you  say,  that  all  the  comments  on  Scripture,  still  to  be  found, 
in  the  writings  of  Ignatius,  Polycarp,  Athenagoras,  or  even  of  Origen 
and  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  are  senseless  and  extravagant  1  If  not, 
this  charge  must  fall  ^  the  ground  :  it  being  manifest,  that  even 
"  the  age  in  which  they  lived,"  could  both  "  endure  and  relish," 
sound,  sensible,  rational  (and  yet  spiritual)  comments  on  holy  writ. 
Yet  this  extravagant  charge  you  have  repeated  over  and  over  in  va- 
rious parts  of  your  work  :  thrusting  it  upon  your  reader  in  season 
and  out  of  season.     How  fairly,  let  all  candid  men  judge. 

3.  Touching  the  miraculous  gift  of  expounding  Scripture  you  say, 
"  Justin  Martyr  affirms,  it  was  conferred  on  hiia  by  tfie  special  grace 
of  God."  (p.  1 17. )  I  cannot  find,  where  he  affirms  this.  Not  in  the 
words  you  cite,  which  literally  translated  (as  was  observed  before) 
run  thus  :  '  He  hath  revealed  to  us  whatsoever  things  we  have  un- 
derstood by  his  grace  from  the  Scriptures  also.'  You  seem  con- 
scious, these  words  do  not  prove  the  point,  and  therefore  eke  them 
out  with  those  of  Monsieur  Tillemont.     But  his  own  words,  and  no 


id  A    LETTER   TO   DR.    MIDDLETOK- 

other,  will  satisfy  me.     I  cannot  believe  it,  unless  from  his  own 
mouth. 

4.  Meantime  I  cannot  but  observe  an  odd  circumstance,  that  you 
are  here,  in  ihe  abundance  of  your  strength,  confuting  a  proposi- 
tion which  (whether  it  be  true  or  false)  not  one  of  your  antagonists 
affirms.  You  are  labouring  to  prove,  "  There  was  not  in  the  primi- 
tive church  any  such  miraculous  gift  as  that  of  expotinding  the 
Scriptures."  Pray,  Sir,  who  says  there  was  ]  Not  Justin  Martyr  : 
not  one  among  ali  those  fathers,  whom  you  have  quoted  as  witnesses 
of  the  miraculous  gifts,  from  the  tenth  to  the  eighteenth  page  of  your 
inquiry.  If  you  think  they  do,  i  am  ready  to  Ibllow  you,  step  by 
step,  through  every  quotation  you  have  made. 

5.  No,  nor  is  this  mentioned  in  any  enumeration  of  the  miracu- 
lous gifts  which  1  can  find  in  the  Holy  Scriptures..  Prophecy  indeed 
is  mentioned  more  than  once,  by  the  Apostles  as  well  as  the  Fathers. 
But  the  context  shows,  where  it  is  promised  as  a  miraculous  gift,  it 
means  the  foretelling  things  to  come.  All  therefore  which  you  say 
on  this  head,  is  a  mere  ignoratio  elenchi,  a  mistake  of  the  question 
to  be  proved. 

Sect.  VI.  1.  The  eighth  and  last  of  the  miraculous  gifts  you 
enumerated,  was,  the  gift  of  tongues,  (p.  119.)  And  this,  it  is  sure, 
was  claimed  by  the  primitive  Christians  ;  for  Irenasus  says  expressly, 
*  We  hear  many  in  the  church,  speaking  with  all  kinds  of  tongues.' 
''  And  yet,"  you  say,  "  this  was  granted  only  on  certain  special  occa- 
sions, and  then  withdrawn  again  from  the  apostles  themselves:  so  that 
in  the  ordinary  course  of  tlieir  ministry  they  were  generally  destitute 
of  it.  This,"  you  say,  "  I  have  shown  elsewhere."  I  presume,  in 
some  treatise  which  I  have  not  seen. 

2.  But  Irenaeus,  who  declares,  that  "  many  had  this  gift  in  his 
days,  yet  owns,  he  had  it  not  himself."  This  is  only  a  proof  that 
the  case  was  then  the  same,  as  when  St.  Paul  observed  long  before, 
..ire  all  workers  of  miracles  ?  Have  all  the  gifts  of  healing  ?  Do  all 
speak  with  tongues?  (1  Cor.  xii.  29,  30.)  No,  not  even  when  those 
gifts  were  shed  abroad  in  the  most  abundant  manner. 

3.  "  But  no  other  father  has  made  the  least  claim  to  it,"  (p.  120.) 
Perhaps  none  of  those  whose  writings  are  now  extant ;  at  least, 
not  in  those  writings  which  are  extant.  But  what  are  these  in  com- 
parison of  those  which  are  lost  ?  And  how  many  were  burning  and 
shining  lights,  within  three  hundred  years  after  Christ,  who  wrote 
no  account  of  themselves  at  all ;  at  least  none  which  has  come  to 
our  hands  !  But  who  are  they  that  "  speak  of  it  as  a  gift  peculiar 
to  the  time  of^the  apostles?"  (ibid.)  You  say,  "  There  is  not  a 
single  father,  who  ventures  to  speak  of  it  in  any  other  manner." 
Well,  bring  but  six  Ante-nicene  fathers,  who  speak  of  it  in  this  man- 
ner, and  I  will  give  up  the  whole  point. 

4.  But  you  say,  "  After  the  apostolic  times,  there  is  not  in  all  his- 
tory one  instance,  even  so  much  as  mentioned,  of  any  particular 
person  who  ever  exercised  this  gift."  (p.  120.)  You  must  mean, 
either  that  the  Heathens  have  mentioned  no  instance  of  this  kind, 


A   LETTER   TO   DR.    MIDDLETOX.  47 

(which  is  not  at  all  surprising,)  or  that  Irenaeus  does  not  mention 
the  names  of  those  many  persons  who  m  his  time  exercised  this 
gift.  And  this  also  may  be  allowed  without  atiecting  in  any  wise  the 
credibility  of  his  testimony  concerning  them. 

5.  I  must  take  notice  her^  of  another  of  your  postulatums, 
which  leads  you  into  many  mistakes.  With  regard  to  past  ages,  you 
continually  take  this  for  granted,  "  What  is  not  recorded,  was  not 
done."  But  this  is  by  no  means  a  self-evident  a'xiom.  Nay,  pos- 
sibly it  is  not  true.  For  there  may  be  many  reasons  in  the  depth 
of  the  wisdom  of  God,  for  his  doing  many  things  at  various  times 
and  places,  either  by  his  natural  or  supernatural  power,  which 
were  never  recorded  at  all.  And  abundantly  more  were  recorded 
once,  and  that  with  the  fullest  evidence,  whereof  nevertheless  we 
find  no  certain  evidence  now,  at  the  distance  of  fourteen  hundred 
years. 

6.  Perhaps  this  may  obtain  in  the  very  case  before  us.  Many 
may  have  spoken  with  new  tongues,  of  whom  this  is  not  recorded  : 
at  least  the  records  are  lost,  in  a  course  of  so  many  hundreds  of 
years.  Nay,  it  is  not  only  possible  that  it  may  be  so,  but  it  is  abso- 
lutely certain  that  it  is  so.  And  you  }ourself  must  acknowledge  it. 
For  you  acknowledge,  that  the  apostles,  when  in  straiige  countries, 
spoke  with  strange  tongues  :  that  St.  John,  for  instance,  when  in 
Asia  Minor,  St.  Peter,  when  in  Italy,  (if  he  was  really  there,)  and 
the  other  apostles,  when  in  other  countries,  in  Parthia,  Media, 
Phrygia,  Pamphylia,  spoke  each  to  the  natives  of  each  in  their  own 
tongues,  the  wonderful  works  of  God.  And  yet  there  is  no  au- 
thentic record  of  this  :  "  There  is  not  in  all  history,  one  well  at- 
tested instance  of  any  particular  apostle's  exercising  this  gift  in  any 
country  whatsoever."  Now,  Sir,  if  your  axiom  were  allowed,  what 
would  be  the  consequence  1  Even  that  the  apostles  themselves  no 
more  spoke  with  tongues  than  any  of  their  successors. 

7.  I  need  therefore  take  no  trouble  about  your  subsequent  reason- 
ings, seeing  they  are  built  on  such  a  foundation.  Only  1  must  ob- 
serve an  historical  mistake  which  occurs  toward  the  bottom  of  your 
next  page.  Since  the  reformation,  you  say,  "  This  gift  has  never  once 
been  heard  of,  or  pretended  to  by  the  Romanists  themselves."  (p. 
122.)  But  has  it  been  pretended  to  (whether  justly  or  not)  by  no 
others,  though  not  by  the  Romanists  1  Has  it  never  once  been  heard 
of"  since  that  time  1  Sir,  your  memory  fails  you  again.  It  has  un- 
doubtedly been  "  pretended  to,"  and  that  at  no  great  distance  either 
from  our  time  or  country.  It  has  been  "  heard  of"  more  than  oncef 
no  farther  off  than  the  valleys  of  Dauphiny.  Nor  is  it  yet  fifty  years 
ago,  since  the  Protestant  inhabitants  of  those  valleys  so  loudly  p)'e- 
tended  to  this  and  other  miraculous  powers,  as  to  give  much  disturb- 
ance to  Paris  itself.  And  how  did  the  king  of  France  confute  that 
pretence,  and  prevent  its  being  heard  any  more  ?  Not  by  the  pen 
of  his  scholars,  but  by  (a  truly  Heathen  way)  the  swords  and  bayo- 
nets of  his  dragoons. 

8.  You  close  this  head  with  a  very  extraordinary  thought.  "  The 
gift  of  tongues  may,"  you  say,  "  be  considered  as  a  proper  test  or 


48  A    LETTER.   TO    DR.    MIDDLETON'. 

criterion  for  determining  the  miraculous  pretensions  of  all  churches;- 
If  among  their  extraordinary  gifts  they  cannot  show  us  this,  they 
have  none  to  show  which  are  genuine."  p.  122. 

Now  I  really  thought  it  had  been  otherwise.  1  thought  it  had  been 
an  adjudged  rule  in  the  case,  »^ll  tJ^ese  worketh  one  and  the  selfsame 
spirit,  dividing  to  every  man  severally  as  he  loill.  And  as  to  every 
man,  so  to  every  church,  every  collective  body  of  men.  But  if  this 
be  so,  then  yours  is  no  proper  test,  for  determining  the  pretensions 
of  all  churches  :  seeing  he  who  worketh  as  he  will,  may  (with  your 
good  leave)  give  the  gift  of  tongues,  where  he  gives  no  other  :  and 
may  see  abundant  reasons  so  to  do,  whether  you  and  1  see  them  or 
not.  For  perhaps  we  have  not  always  known  the  mind  of  the  Lord ; 
jaot  being  of  the  number  of  his  counsellors.  On  the  other  hand,  he 
may  see  good  to  give  many  other  gifts,  where  it  is  not  his  will  to  be- 
stow this.  Particularly  where  it  would  be  of  no  use  :  as  in  a  church 
where  all  are  of  one  mind,  and  all  speak  the  same  language. 

9.  You  have  now  finished  (after  a  fashion)  what  you  proposed  to 
do  in  the  fourth  place,  which  was,  "  to  review  all  the  several  kinds 
of  miraculous  gifts,  which  are  pretended  to  have  been  in  the  primitive 
church."  Indeed,  you  have  dropped  one  or  two  of  them  by  the  way  ; 
against  the  rest  you  have  brought  forth  your  strong  reasons.  Those 
reasons  have  been  coolly  examined.  And  now  let  every  impartial 
man,  every  person  of  true  and  unbiassed  reason,  calmly  consider 
and  judge,  whether  you  have  made  out  one  point  of  all  that  you  took 
in  hand  1  And  whether  some  miracles  of  each  kind  may  not  have  been 
wrought  in  the  ancient  church,  for  any  thing  you  have  advanced  to 
the  contrary  1 

10.  From  the  127th  to  the  158th  page,  you  relate  miracles  said 
to  be  wrought  in  the  fourth  century.  I  have  no  concern  with  these ; 
but  I  must  weigh  an  argument  which  you  intermix  therewith  again 
and  again.  It  is  in  substance  this  :  "  If  we  cannot  believe  the  mira- 
cles attested  by  the  later  Fathers,  then  we  ought  not  to  believe  those 
which  are  attested  by  the  earliest  writers  of  the  church."  I  answer, 
the  consequence  is  not  good :  because  the  case  is  not  the  same  with 
the  one  and  with  the  other.  Several  objections,  which  do  not  hold 
with  regard  to  the  earlier,  may  lie  against  the  later  miracles  ;  drawn 
either  from  the  improbability  of  the  facts  themselves,  such  as  we  have 
no  precedent  of  in  holy  writ ;  from  the  incompetency  of  the  instru- 
ments said  to  perform  them,  such  as  bones,  relics,  or  departed  saints  ; 
or  from  the  gross  "  credulity  of  a  prejudiced,  or  the  dishonesty  of  an 
interested  relater,"  p.  145. 

11.  One  or  other  of  these  objections  holds  against  most  of  the 
!ater  (though  not  the  earlier)  miracles.  And  if  only  one  holds,  it  is 
enough  ;  it  is  ground  sufficient  for  making  the  difference.  If  therefore 
it  was  true,  that  there  was  not  a  single  father  of  the  fourth  age,  who 
was  not  equally  pious  with  the  best  of  the  more  ancient,  still  we 
might  consistently  reject  most  of  the  miracles  of  the  fourth,  while  we 
allowed  those  of  the  preceding  ages ;  both  because  of  the  far  greater 
improbability  of  the  facts  themselves,  and  because  of  the  incompe- 
tency of  the  instruments. 


,  A    t-ETTER    TO    DR.   MIDDLETON.  49 

t 

But  it  is  not  true,  that  "  the  fathers  of  the  fourth  age,"  whom  you 
uiention,  were  equally  pious  with  the  best  of  the  preceding  ages. 
Nay,  according  to  your  account,  (which  I  shall  not  now  contest) 
they  were'  not  pious  at  all.  For  you  say,  "They  were  wilful,  habi- 
tual liars."  And  if  so,  they  had  not  a  grain  of  piety.  Now  ihat  the 
earlier  fathers  were  not  such,  has  been  shown  at  large,  (though  in- 
deed you  complimented  them  with  the  same  character.)  Conse- 
quently, whether  these  later  fathers  are  to  be  believed  or  not,  we  may 
safely  believe  the  former  :  who  dared  not  to  do  evil  that  good  might 
come,  or  to  lie  either  for  God  or  man. 

12.  I  had  not  intended  to  say  any  thing  more,  concerning  any  ot 
the  miracles  of  the  later  ages.  But  your  way  of  accounting  for  one, 
said  to  have  been  wrought  in  the  fifth,  is  so  extremely  curious  that  I 
cannot  pass  it  by. 

The  story,  ft  seems,  is  this  :  "  Hunneric,  an  Arian  prince,  in  his 
persecution  of  the  orthodox  in  Afric,  ordered  the  tongues  of  a  cer- 
tain society  of  them  to  be  cut  out  by  the  roots.  But  by  a  surprising 
instance  of  God's  good  providence,  they  were  enabled  to  speak  articu- 
lately and  distinctly,  without  their  tongues.  And  so  continuing  to 
make  open  profession  of  the  same  doctrine,  they  became  not  only 
preachers,  but  living  witnesses  of  its  truth."  p.  182. 

Do  not  mistake  me,  Sir.  I  have  no  design  at  all  to  vouch  for  the 
truth  of  this  miracle.  I  leave  it  just  as  I  find  it.  But  what  I  am  con- 
cerned with  is,  your  manner  of  accounting  for  it. 

13.  And  first,  you  say,  "  It  may  not  improbably  be  supposed,  that 
though  their  tongues  were  ordered  to  be  cut  to  the  roots,  yet  the  sen- 
tence might  not  be  so  strictly  executed,  as  not  to  leave  in  some  of 
them  such  a  share  of  that  organ  as  was  sufficient,  in  a  tolerable  de- 
gree, for  the  use  of  speech."  (p.  183.)  So  you  think.  Sir,  if  only  an 
inch  of  a  man's  tongue  were  to  be  neatly  taken  off,  he  would  be  able 
to  talk  tolerably  well,  as  soon  as  the  operation  was  over. 

But  the  most  marvellous  part  is  still  behind.  For  you  add,  "  To 
f'ome  more  close  to  the  point.  If  we  ghould  allow  that  the  tongues 
of  these  confessors  were  cut  away  to  the  very  roots,  what  v/ili  the 
(earned. doctor  say,  if  this  boasted  miracle  should  be  found  at  last  to 
be  no  miracle  at  all  ?'  p.  184. 

Say  *?  Why,  that  you  have  more  skill  than  all  the  slrulling  loonder- 
workers  of  the  three  first  centuries  put  together. 

But  to  the  point.  Let  us  see  how  you  will  set  about  it.  Why 
thus  :  "  The  tongue,"  as  you  justly,  though  keenly  observe,  "  has 
generally  been  considered  as  absolulely  necessary  to  the  use  oi 
speech.  So  that  to  hear  men  talk  without  it,  might  easily  pass  for 
a  miracle  in  that  credulous  age.  Yet  there  was  always  room  to 
doubt,  whether  there  was  any  thing  miraculous  in  it  or  not.  But 
we  have  an  instance  in  the  present  century,  which  clears  up  all  our 
doubts,  and  entirely  decides  the  question  1  mean,  the  case  of  a  giv! 
born  without  a  to}igue,  who  talked  as  easily  and  distinctly  as  if  she 
.had  had  one  ;  an  account  of  which  is  given  in  the  Memoirs  of  the 
A  cademy'  of  Sciences  at  Paris."  ibid. 

Vol.  9.— F 


■■3W  A    LETTER    TO   DE.    MIDDLETOI?,   ' 

1 4.  And  can  you  really  believe  this  ?  That  a  girl  spoke  distimilp 
md  easjly  without  any  tongue  at  all  1  And  after  avowing  this  belief., 
do  you  gravely  talk  of  other  men's  credulity]  I  wonder  that  such  a 
volunteer  in  faith  should  stagger  at  any  thing.  Dgubtless,  were  it 
related  as  natural  only,  not  miraculous,  you  could  believe,  that  a  man 
might  see  without  eyes ! 

Surely  there  is  something  very  peculiar  in  this  ;  something  extra- 
ordinary, though  not  miraculous  ;  that  a  man,  who  is  too  wise  to  be- 
lieve the  Bible,  should  believe  every  thing  but  the  Bible  !  Should 
swallow  any  tale,  so  God  be  out  of  the  question,  though  ever  so  im- 
probable, ever  so  impossible  ! 

15.  "I  have  now,"  you  say,  "thrown  together  all  which  !  had 
collected  for  the  support  of  my  argument ;"  (p.  187,)  a  lame  reca- 
pitulation of  which  you  add  with  an  air  of  triumph  and  satisfaction, 
(p.  188.)  "I  wish  the  Fathers,  the  ablest  advocates  which  Popery  it- 
self can  afford  ;  for  Protestantism,  I  am  sure,  can  supply  none  whom 
they  would  choose  to  retain  in  their  cause  :  none  who  can  defend 
them  without  contradicting  their  own  profession,  and  disgracing  their 
own  character ;  or  produce  any  thing,  but  what  deserves  to  be 
laughed  at,  rather  than  answered."  p.  189. 

Might  it  not  be  well,  Sir,  not  to  be  quite  so  sure  yet  ?  You  may 
not  always  have  the  laugh  on  your  side.  You  are  not  yet  infallibly 
assured,  but  that  even  Protestantism  may  produce  something  worth  an 
answer.  There  may  be  some  Protestants,  for  aught  you  know,  who 
have  a  few  grains  of  common  sense  left,  and  may  find  a  way  to  de- 
fend, at  least  the  Jlntenicene  fathers,  without  "  disgracing  their  own 
character."  Even  such  an  one  as  I,  have  faintly  attempted  this  : 
although  I  neither  have,  nor  expect  to  have  any  preferment ;  not 
even  to  be  a  Lambeth  chaplain  :  which  if  Dr.  Middleton  is  not,  it  is 
not  his  own  fault. 

V.  1.  The  last  thing  you  proposed  was,  "  To  refute  some  of  the 
most  plausible  objections  which  have  been  hitherto  made."  To 
what  you  have  offered  on  this  head,  I  must  likewise  attempt  a  short 
reply.  _  •  _ 

You  say,  "  It  is  objected,  first.  That  by  the  character  I  have  given 
of  the  Fathers,  the  authority  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament, 
which  were  transmitted  to  us  through  their  hands,  will  be  rendered 
precarious  and  uncertain."  p.  190. 

After  a  feint  of  confuting  it,  you  frankly  acknowledge  the  whole 
of  this  objection.  "  I  may  venture,"  you  say,  "  to  declare,  that  if 
this  objection  be  true,  it  cannot  hurt  my  argument.  For  if  it  be 
natural  and  necessary,  that  the  craft  and  credulity  of  witnesses 
should  always  detract  from  the  credit  of  their  testimony  :  then  who 
can  help  it?  And  if  this  charge  be  proved  on  the  Fathers,  it  must  be 
admitted,  how  far  soever  the  consequences  may  reach."  p.  192. 

"  If  it  be  proved," — Very  true.  I  f  that  charge  against  the  Fathers 
•vvere  really  and  substantially  proved,  the  authority  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament would  be  at  an  end,  so  far  as  it  depends  on  one  kind  of  evi- 


A   LETTER   TO   DR.    MIDDLETOX.  5) 

■uence.     But  that  charge  is  not  proved.     Therefore  even  the  tradi- 
tional authority  of  the  New  Testament  is  as  tirm  as  ever. 

2.  It  is  objected,  you  say,  secondly,  "  That  all  suspicion  of  fraud 
in  the  case  of  the  primitive  miracles,  is  excluded  by  that  public  ap- 
peal and  challenge  which  the  Christian  apologists  make  to  their  ene- 
mies the  Heathens,  to  come  and  see  with  their  own  eyes  the  reality 
of  the  facts  which  they  attest."  p.  193. 

You.  answer,  "  Tliis  objection  has  no  real  weight  with  any  who 
are  acquainted  with  the  condition  of  the  Christians  in  those  days." 
You  then  enlarge  (as  it  seems,  with  a  peculiar  pleasure)  on  the  ge- 
neral contempt  and  odium  they  lay  under,  from  the  first  appearance 
of  Christianity  in  the  world,  till  it  was  established  by  the  civil  power, 
p.  194—196. 

"  In  these  circumstances  it  cannot  be  imagined,"  you  say,  "  thai 
men  of  figure  and  fortune  would  pay  any  attention  to  the  apologies 
or  writings  of  a  sect  so  utterly  despised."  fp.  197.)  But,  Sir,  they 
were  hated  as  well  as  despised  ;  and  that  by  the  great  vulgar  as  well 
as  the  small.  And  this  very  hatred  would  naturally  prompt  them  to 
examine  the  ground  of  the  challenges  daily  repeated  by  them  they 
hated  :  were  it  only,  that  by  discovering  the  fraud,  (which  they  want- 
ed neither  opportunity  nor  skill  to  do,  had  there  been  any,)  they 
might  have  had  a  better  pretence  for  throwing  the  Christians  to  the 
Ho7is,  than  because  the  Nile  did  not,  or  the  Tiber  did  overflow. 

3.  You  add,  "  Much  less  can  we  believe  that  the  emperor  or  se- 
nate of  Rome  should  take  any  notice  of  those  apologies,  or  even 
know  indeed  that  any  sucli  were  addressed  to  them."  (p.  197.) 
Why,  Sir,  by  your  account,  you  would  make  us  believe  that  all  the 
emperors  and  senate  together  were  as  "  senseless,  stupid  a  race  of 
blockheads  and  iirutes,"  as  even  the  Christians  themselves. 

But  hold.  You  are  going  to  prove  it  too.  "  For,"  say  you, 
''  should  the  like  case  happen  now,  that  any  Methodist,  Moravian, 
or  French  prophet,"  (right  skilfully  put  together,)  "  should  publish 
an  apology  for  his  brethren,  addressed  to  the  king  and  parliament ; 
is  it  not  wholly  improbable,  that  the  government  would  pay  any  re- 
gard to  it  ]"  You  should  add,  (to  make  the  parallel  complete,)  "  or 
know  that  any  such  was  addressed  to  them." 

No  ]  I  conceive  the  improbability  supposed  lies  wholly  on  the 
other  side.  Whatever  the  government  of  Heathen  Rome  was, 
(which  I  presume  you  will  not  depreciate,)  the  government  of  Eng- 
land is  remarkable  for  tenderness  to  the  very  meanest  subject.  If 
is,  therefore,  not  improbable  in  the  least,  that  an  address  from  some 
thousands  of  those  subjects,  how  contemptible  soever  they  were  ge- 
nerally esteemed,  "  would  not  be  totally  disregarded  by  such  a  go- 
vernnjent."  But  that  they  should  "  not  know  that  any  such  had 
been  addressed  to  them,"  is  not  only  improbable,  but  morally  impos- 
sible. 

if,  therefore,  it  were  possible  for  the  Heathens  to  "  have  a  worse 
opinion  of  the  ancient  Christians  than  we,"  you  say,  "  have  of  our 
modern  fanatics,"  still  it  is  utterly  incredible,  that  the  Roman  go. 


52  A    LETTER    TO   DR.    MIDDLETOJf. 

veriiment  should  not  only  "  take  no  notice  of  their  apologies,"  hiii 
not  even  know  that  any  such  were  addressed  to  them. 

4.  "  But  the  pubhshing  books  was  more  expensive  then,  than  it  is 
now.  And,  therefore,  we  cannot  think  the  Christians  of  those  days 
were  able  to  provide  such  a  number  of  them  as  was  sufficient  for  the 
information  of  the  public."  p.  198,  199. 

Nay,  if  they  were  not  able  to  provide  themselves  food  and  rai- 
ment, they  would  be  sure  to  provide  a  sufficient  number  of  these  : 
sufficient  at  least  ibr  the  informal  ion  of  the  emjieror  and  senate,  to 
v/hom  those  apologies  were  addressed.  And  how  great  a  number  do 
you  suppose  might  suffice  for  them  1  How  many  hundreds  or  thou- 
sands of  copies  ?  I  apprehend  the  emperor  would  be  content  with 
one.  And  one  more  would  be  needful  for  the  senate.  Now  I  really 
believe  the  Christians  of  those  days  were  able  to  provide  both  these 
copies.  Nay,  and  even  two  nicre;  if  it  should  have  iallen  out,  that 
two  or  three  emperors  were  on  the  throne  :  even  though  we  should 
suppose,  that  in  Tertullian's  time  there  were  but  forty  thousand  of 
them  in  all  Rome. 

5.  Hov.^ever,  you  plunge  on  :  "  Since  then  the  Christians  were 
not  able  <o  bear  the  expense  of  copying  them,"  (whether  the  Hea- 
thens were  disposed  to  buy  them,  or  not,  is  at  present  out  of  the 
question,)  "  there  is  great  reason  to  believe,  that  their  apologies, 
how  gravely  soever  addressed  to  emperors  and  seitates,  lay  unknown 
ibr  many  years."  There  is  no  great  reason  to  believe  it  from  any 
thing  you  have  advanced  yet.  You  add,  "  especially  when  the  pub- 
lishing of  them  was  not  only  expensive,  but  so  criminal  also  as  to 
expose  them  often  to  danger,  and  even  to  capital  punishment." 
p.  199. 

In  very  deed,  Sir,  I  am  sometimes  inclined  to  suspect,  that  you 
are  yourself  related  to  certain  ancient  fathers,  (notwithstanding  the 
learned  quotations  which  adorn  your  margin,  who  used  to  say,  Gros- 
ciini  est:  wen  potest  legi.  You  lay  me  under  an  almost  invincible 
temptation  to  think  so  upon  this  very  occasion.  For  what  could  in- 
duce you,  if  you  knew  what  he  said,  to  place  at  the  bottom  of  this 
very  page,  a  passage  from  one  of  those  apologists,  Justin  Martyr, 
which  so  clearly  confutes  your  own  argument  1  The  words  are. 
*  Although  death  be  determined  against  those  who  teach,  or  even  confesf^ 
the  name  of  Christ,  we  both  embrace  and  teach  it  every  where.  And  if 
you  also  receive  these  wofds  as  enetnies,  you  can  do  no  more  than  kill  us. 
Could  danger  then,  or  the  fear  of  capital  punishment,  restrain  those 
Christians  from  presenting  these  apologies'.'  No  :  capital  punishment 
was  no  terror  to  them,  who  daily  offered  themselves  to  the  flames : 
till  the  very  Heathen  butchers  themselves  were  tired  with  slaughter- 
ing them. 

•  Kat-  cp  Savaru  opic^crTo;  Kaja  twv  iiSaaKovroiv,  t;  oXiuf  Ofio\oyiivTU>v  to  ovopa  rv  Xpi^u,  »7^ris 
ioavTa)(^a  Kai  aoira^oixc^a  Kai  iiiacKOfia'.     Ei  Se  Kat  tuifij  uif  eyOpoi  evliv^ia&e  roitric  rois  Xoyois,  t 

Just.  Mart,  Apol,  i,  p.  69. 


A    LETTER   TO  DR.   MIDDLETOiV.  53 

There  can,  therefore,  no  shadow  of  doubt  remain,  with  any  cool 
and  impartial  man,  but  that  these  apologies  were  presented  to  the 
most  eminent  Heathens,  to  the  magistrates,  the  senate,  the  empe- 
rors. Nor,  consequently,  is  there  the  least  room  to  doubt  of  the 
truth  of  the  facts  therein  asserted  :  seeing  the  apologists  constantly 
defied  their  enemies,  "  to  come  and  see  them  with  their  own  eyes  :" 
a  hazard  which  those  crafty  men  would  never  have  run,  had  not  the 
facts  themselves  been  infallibly  certain.  This  objection  then  stands 
against  you  in  full  force.  For  such  a  public  appeal  to  their  bitterest 
enemies  must  "  exclude  all  reasonable  suspicion  of  fraud,  in  the 
case  of  the  primitive  miracles." 

6.  You  tell  us,  it  is  objected,  thirdly,  "  That  no  suspicion  of  fraud 
can  reasonably  be  entertained  against  those  who  exposed  themselves 
even  to  martyrdom,  in  confirmation  of  the  truth  of  what  they  taught.'" 
p.  194. 

In  order  to  invalidate  this  objection,  you  assert,  "  That  some  of 
the  primitive  Christians  might  expose  themselves  to  martyrdom,  out 
of  mere  obstinacy  ;  (p.  200.)  others  from  a  desire  of  glory  ;  (p.  201.) 
others,  from  a  fear  of  reproach  ;  (p.  208.)  but  the  most  of  all,  from 
the  hope  of  a  higher  reward  in  heaven  ;  (p.  202.)  especially  as  they 
believed,  the  end  of  the  world  was  near,  and  that  the  martyrs  felt  no 
pain  in  death."  (p.  203,  204.)  "  All  which  topics,"  you  say,  "  when 
displayed  with  art,  were  sufficient  to  inflame  the  multitude  to  em- 
brace any  martyrdom."  p.  208. 

This  appears  very  plausible  in  speculation.  But  fact  and  experi- 
ence will  not  answer.  You  are  an  eloquent  man,  and  able  to  dis- 
play any  topic  you  please,  with  art  enough.  Yet  if  you  were  to  try, 
with  all  that  art  and  eloquence,  to  persuade  by  all  these  topics,  not  a 
whole  multitude,  but  one  simple  credulous  ploughman,  to  go  and  be 
shot  through  the  head  ;  I  am  afraid,  you  would  scarce  prevail  witli 
him  after  all,  to  embrace  even  that  easy  martyrdom.  And  it  might 
be  more  difficult  still  to  find  a  man,  who  either  out  of  obstinacy,  tiear 
of  shame,  or  desire  of  glory,  would  calmly  and  deliberately  offer  him- 
self to  be  roasted  alive  in  Smithfield. 

7.  Have  you  considered,  Sir,  how  the  case  stood  in  our  own  coun- 
try, scarce  two  hundred  years  ago  1  Not  a  multitude,  ii'ideed,  and 
yet  not  a  few,  of  our  own  countrymen  then  expired  in  the  flames. 
And  it  was  not  a  general  persuasion  among  them,  that  martyrs  feel 
no  pain  in  death.  That  these  had  feeling,  as  well  as  other  men, 
plainly  appeared,  in  the  case  of  bishop  Ridley,  crying  out,  "  1  can- 
not burn,  I  cannot  burn,"  when  his  lower  parts  were  consumed. 
Do  you  think  the  fear  of  shame,  or  the  desire  of  praise,  was  the  mo- 
tive on  which  these  acted  ?  Or  have  you  reason  to  beheve  it  was 
mere  obstinacy  that  hindered  them  from  accepting  deliverance  1  Sir, 
"  since  human  nature  has  always  been  the  same,  so  that  our  experi- 
ence of  what  now  passes  in  our  own  soul,  will  be  the  best  comment 
on  what  is  deUvered  to  us  concerning  others,"  let  me  entreat  you,  to 
make  the  case  your  OAvn.  You  must  not  say,  '  I  am  not  one  of  the 
ignorant  vulgar ;  1  am  a  man  of  sense  and  learning.'     So  were  many 

F  2 


54.  A.    LETTER    TO   DR.    MIDDLETON. 

of  them;  not  inferior  even  to  you,  either  in  natural  or  acquired  en- 
dowments. I  ask  then,  would  any  of  these  motives  suffice  to  induce 
you  to  burn  at  a  stake?  1  beseech  you,  lay  your  hand  on  your  heart, 
and  answer  between  God  and  your  own  soul,  what  motive  could  in- 
cite you  to  walk  into  a  fire,  but  a  hope  full  of  immortality'?  When 
you  mention  this  motive,  you  speak  to  the  point.  And  yet  ev€n 
with  regard  to  this,  both  you  and  I  should  find,  did  it  come  to  a  trial, 
that  tiie  hope  of  a  fool,  or  the  hope  of  a  hypocrite,  would  stand  us 
in  no  stead.  We  should  find  nothing  else  would  sustain  us  in  that 
hour,  but  a  well-grounded  confidence  of  a  better  resurrection^  no- 
thing less  than  the  '  steadfastly  looking  up  to  heaven,  and  beholding 
the  glory  which  shall  be  revealed.' 

8.  "  But  Heretics,"  you  say,  "  have  been  martyrs."  I  will  an- 
swer more  particularly,  when  you  specify  who  ?  and  wheni  It  may 
suffice  to  say  now,  whosoever  he  be,  that  rather  than  he  will  offend 
God,  calmly  and  deliberately  chooses  to  suffer  death,  I  cannot  lightly 
speak  evil  of  him. 

But  Cyprian  says,  '  Some  who  had  suft'ered  tortures  for  Christ. 
yet  afterv/ards  fell  into  gross,  open  sin.'  It  may  be  so:  but  it  is  no- 
thing to  the  question.  It  does  not  prove  in  the  least,  what  you 
brought  it  to  prove,  namely,  "  That  bad  men  have  endured  martyr- 
dom." Do  not  evade,  Sir,  and  say,  "Yes,  torments  are  a  kind  of 
martyrdom."     True;   but  not  the  martyrdom  of  which  we  speak. 

9.  You  salve  all  at  last,  by  declaring  gravely,  "  It  is  not  my  de- 
sign to  detract  in  any  manner  from  the  just  praise  of  those  primitive 
martyrs,  who  sustained  the  cause  of  Christ  at  the  expense  of  their 
lives."  (p.  112.)  No.  Who  could  ever  suppose  it  was?  Who 
could  imagine  it  was  yoiu'  design  to  detract  from  the  just  praise  of 
.fustin,  Irenaeus,  or  Cyprian  ?  You  only  desired  to  show,  what  their 
just  praise  was,  namely,  the  praise  of  pick-pockets,  of  common  cheats 
and  impostors.  We  understand  your  meaning,  therefore,  when 
you  add,  "  It  is  reasonable  to  believe,  that  they  were  the  best  sort  ol 
Christians,  and  the  chief  ornaments  of  the  church  in  their  several 
ages."  p.  113. 

10.  You  conclude,  "  My  view  is  to  show,  that  their  martyrdom 
does  not  add  any  weight  to  their  testimony."  Whether  it  does  or 
not,  "It  gives  the  strongest  proof,"  (as  you  yourself  affirm,)  "  of  the 
sincerity  of  their  faith  :"  and  consequently  proves,  "  that  no  sus- 
picion of  fraud  can  reasonably  be  entertained  against  them."  (ibid.) 
But  this  (which  you  seem  to  have  quite  forgot)  was  the  whole  of 
the  objection :  and,  consequently,  this,  as  well  as  both  the  former 
objections,  remain  in  their  full  force. 

11.  It  has-been  objected,  fourthly,  you  say,  That  you  "destroy 
die  faith  and  credit  of  all  history."  (p.  114.)  But  this  objection,  you 
affirm,  "  when  seriously  considered,  will  appear  to  have  no  sense  a< 
all  in  it:"  p.  115. 

That  we  will  try.  And  one  passage,  home  to  the  point,  is  as 
good  as  a  thousand.  Now,  Sir,  be  pleased  to  look  back.  In  your 
preface,   (p.  9,)  I  read  these  Tvords:  "  The  credibility  of  facts  lies 


A    LETTER   TO    DK.  MIDDLETOK^.  Q6 

open  to  the  trial  of  our  reason  and  senses.  But  the  credibility  oi 
witnesses  depends  on  a  variety  of  principles  wholly  concealed  from 
us.  And  though,  in  many  cases,  it  may  reasonably  be  presumed, 
yet  in  none  can  it  certainly  be  known." 

If  this  be  as  you  assert,  (I  repeat  it  again)  then  farewell  the  credit 
of  all  history  :  Sir,  this  is  not  "  the  cant  of  zealots  :"  you  must  not 
escape  so :  it  is  plain,  sober  reason.  If  "  the  credibility  of  witnesses" 
(of  all  witnesses  ;  for  you  make  no  distinction)  depends,  as  you  pe- 
remptorily affirm,  on  a  variety  of  principles  "  wholly  concealed  from 
us,"  and  consequently,  though  it  may  be  presumed  in  many  cases, 
yet  can  be  certainly  known  in  none :  then  it  is  plain,  all  history, 
sacred  or  profane,  is  utterly  precarious  and  uncertain.  Then  1  may 
indeed  presume,  but  I  cannot  certainly  know,  that  Julius  Caesar  was 
killed  in  the  senate-house  ;  then  I  cannot  certainly  know,  that  there 
was  an  emperor  in  Germany,  called  Charles  the  fifth  ;  that  Leo  the 
tenth  ever  sat  in  the  seie  of  Rome,  or  Lewis  the  fourteenth  on  the 
throne  of  France.  Now  let  any  man  of  common  understanding' 
judge,  whether  this  objection  has  any  sense  in  it,  or  not. 

12.  Under  this  same  head,  you  fall  again  upon  the  case  of  witch- 
craft, and  say,  "  There  is  not  in  all  history,  any  one  miraculous  fact, 
so  authentically  attested  as  the  existence  of  witches.  All  Christian" 
(yea  and  all  Heathen)  "  nations  whatsoever,  have  consented  in  the 
belief  of  them.  Now  to  deny  the  reality  of  facts  so  solemnly  attested 
and  so  universally  believed,  seems  to  give  the  lie  to  the  sense  and  ex- 
perience of  all  Christendom;  to  the  wisest  and  best  of  every  nation, 
and  to  public  monuments  subsisting  to  our  own  times."  p.  221. 

What  obliges  you  then  to  deny  it?  You  answer,  "  the  incredibifity 
of  the  thing."  O  Sir,  never  strain  at  the  incredibility  of  this,  after 
you  have  swallowed — a  hundred  people  talking  without  tongues. 

13.  What  you  aim  at  in  this,  also,  is  plain,  as  well  as  in  your  ac- 
count of  the  Abbe  de  Paris  :  the  point  of  your  argument  is,  "  If  you 
cannot  believe  these,  then  you  ought  not  to  believe  the  Bible  :  The 
incredibility  of  the  things  related  ought  to  over-rule  all  testimony 
whatsover." 

Your  argument,  at  length,  would  run  thus  :  "If  things  be  incre- 
dible in  themselves,  then  this  incredibility  ought  to  over-rule  all  tes- 
timony concerning  them.  But  the  gospel-miracles  are  incredible  in 
themselves."  Sir,  that  proposition  I  deny.  You  have  not  proved  it 
yet.  You  have  only  now  and  then,  as  it  were  by  the  by,  made  an 
attempt  to  prove  it.  And  till  this  is  done,  you  have  done  nothing, 
with  all  the  pother  that  you  have  made. 

14.  You  reserve  the  home  stroke  for  the  last.  "  There  is  hardly 
a  miracle  said  to  be  wrought  in  the  primitive  times,  but  what  is  said 
to  be  performed  in  our  days.  But  all  these  modern  pretensions, 
we  ascribe  to  their  true  cause,  the  craft  of  a  few,  playing  upon  the 
credulity  of  the  many,  for  private  interest.  When,  therefore,  we 
read  of  the  same  things  done  by  the  ancients,  and  for  the  same  ends, 
of  acquiring  wealth,  credit,  or  power  :  how  can  we  possibly  hesitate 
fo  impute  them  to  the  same  cause  of  fraud  and  imposture  1"  p.  2.30. 


OG  A  LETTER  TO  DR.  MIDDLETON. 

The  reason  of  our  hesitation  is  this.  They  did  not  answer  the 
same  ends.  The  modern  clergy  of  Rome  do  acquire  credit  and 
wealth  by  their  pretended  miracles.  But  the  ancient  clergy  acquired 
nothing  by  their  miracles,  but  to  be  afflicted,  destitute^  tormented. 
The  one  gain  all  things  thereby  ;  the  others  lost  all  things.  And  this, 
we  think,  makes  some  difference.  '  Even  unto  this  present  hour,' 
says  one  of  them,  (writing  to  those  who  could  easily  confute  him,  if 
he  spoke  not  the  truth)  '  we  both  hunger  and  thirst,  and  are  naked, 
and  are  buffeted,  and  have  no  certain  dwelling-place. — Being  re- 
viled, we  bless  ;  being  persecuted,  we  suffer  it ;  being  defamed,  we 
entreat.  We  are  become  as  the  filth  of  the  world,  as  the  offscouring 
of  all  things  unto  this  day.-  1  Cor.  iv.  11 — 13. — Now,  Sir,  whatever 
be  thought  of  the  others,  we  apprehend  such  clergy  as  these,  labour- 
ing thus,  unto  the  death,  for  such  credit  and  wealth,  are  not  charge- 
able with  fraud  and  imposture. 

VI.  I  have  now  finished  what  I  had  to  say  with  regard  to  your 
book.  Yet,  I  think,  humanity  requires  me  to  add  a  few  words  con- 
ceriiing  some  points  frequently  touched  upon  therein,  which  perhaps 
you  do  not  so  clearly  understand. 

We  have  been  long  disputing  about  Christians,  about  Christianit}-, 
and  the  evidence  whereby  it  js  supported.  But  what  do  these  terms 
meanl  Who  is  a  Christian  indeed  ?  What  is  real,  genuine  Chris- 
tianity 1  And  what  is  the  surest  and  most  accessible  evidence  (if  I 
may  so  speak)  whereby  I  may  know,  that  it  is  of  God  ]  May  the 
God  of  the  Christians  enable  me  to  speak  on  these  heads,  in  a  man- 
ner suitable  to  the  importance  of  them  !  ^ 

Sect.  I.  1,  I  would  consider,  first.  Who  is  a  Christian  indeed? 
What  does  that  term  properly  imply  *?  It  has  been  so  long  abused, 
I  fear,  not  only  to  mean  nothing  at  all,  but,  what  was  far  worse  than 
nothing,  to  be  a  cloak  for  the  vilest  hypocrisy,  for  the  grossest 
abominations  and  immoralities  of  every  kind,  that  it  is  high  time  to 
rescue  it  out  of  the  hands  of  wretches  that  are  a  reproach  to  hu- 
man nature  :  to  show  determinately,  what  mannerof  man  he  is,  to 
whom  this  name  of  right  belongs. 

2.  A  Christian  cannot  think  of  the  Author  of  his  Being,  without 
abasing  himself  before  him:  without  a  deep  sense  of  the  distance 
between  a  worm  of  earth,  and  him  that  sitteth  on  the  circle  of 
the  heavens.  In  his  presence  he  sinks  into  the  dust,  knowing  him- 
self to  be  less  than  nothing  in  his  eye  :  and  being  conscious,  in  a 
manner  words  cannot  express,  of  his  own  littleness,  ignorance,  fool- 
ishness. So  that  he  can  only  cry  out,  from  the  fulness  of  his 
heart,  '  O  God  !  What  is  man  !  What  am  I!' 

3.  He  has  a  continual  sense  of  his  dependence  on  the  Parent  of 
Good,  for  his  Being,  and  all  the  blessings  that  attend  it.  To  him 
he  refers  every  natural,  and  every  moial  endowment :  with  all  that 
is  commonly  ascribed  either  to  fortune,  or  to  the  wisdom,  courage, 
lOr  merit  of  the  possessor.  And  hence  he  acquiesces  in  whatsoever 
appears  to  be  his  will,  not  only  with  patience,  but  with  thankfulness. 
He  willingly  resigns  all  he  is,  all  he  has,  to  his  wise  and  ^racioub 


A    LETTER   TO   DR.   MIDDLETON, 


disposal.  The  ruling  temper  of  his  heart,  is  the  most  absolute  sub- 
mission, and  the  tenderest  gratitude  to  his  Sovereign  Benefactor. 
And  this  grateful  love  creates  filial  fear  :  an  awful  reverence  towards 
him,  and  an  earnest  care  not  to  give  place  to  any  disposition,  not  to 
admit  an  action,  word,  or  thought,  which  might  in  any  degree  dis- 
please that  indulgent  Power  to  whom  he  owes  his  life,  breath,  and 
nil  things. 

4.  And  as  he  has  the  strongest  affection  for  the  Fountain  of  all 
Good,  so  he  has  the  firmest  confidence  in  him  :  a  confidence  which 
neither  pleasure  nor  pain,  neither  life  nor  death  can  shake.  But  yet 
this,  far  from  creating  sloth  or  indolence,  pushes  him  on  to  the  most 
vigorous  industry.  It  causes  him  to  put  forth  all  his  strength,  in  obey- 
ing him  in  whom  he  confides.  So  that  he  is  never  faint  in  his  mind, 
never  weary  of  doing  whatever  he  believes  to  be  his  will.  And  as 
he  knows,  the  most  acceptable  worship  of  God,  is  to  imitate  him  he 
worships,  so  he  !S  continually  labouring  to  transcribe  into  himself 
all  his  imitable  perfections :  in  particular,  his  justice,  mercy,  and 
truth,  so  eminently  displayed  in  all  his  creatures. 

5.  Above  all,  remembering  that  God  is  Love,  he  is  conformed  to 
the  same  likeness.  He  is  full  of  love  to  his  neighbour,  of  universal 
love  :  not  confined  to  one  sect  or  party  :  not  restrained  to  those  who 
agree  with  him  in  opinions,  in  outward  modes  of  worship;  or  to 
those  who  are  allied  to  him  by  blood,  or  recommended  by  nearness 
of  place.  Neither  does  he  love  those  only  that  love  him,  or  are  en- 
deared to  him  by  intimacy  of  acquaintance.  But  his  love  resembles 
that  of  him,  whose  mercy  is  over  all  his  works  !t  soars  above  all 
these  scanty  bounds,  embracing  neighbours  and  strangers,  friends 
and  enemies :  yea,  not  only  the  good  and  gentle,  but  also  the  fro- 
ward ;  the  evil  arid  unthankful.  For  he  loves  every  soul  that  God 
has  made  ;  every  child  of  man,  of  whatever  place  or  nation.  And 
yet  this  universal  benevolence  does  in  nowise  interfere  with  a  pecu- 
liar regard  for  his  relations,  friends,  and  benefactors  ;  a  fervent  love 
for  his  country  ;  and  the  most  endeared  affection  to  all  men  of  inte- 
grity, of  clear  and  generous  virtue. 

6.  His  love  to  these,  so  to  all  mankind,  is  in  itself  generous  and 
disinterested  ;  springing  from  no  view  of  advantage  to  himself,  from 
no  regard  to  profit  or  praise :  no,  nor  even  the  pleasure  of  loving. 
This  is  the  daughter,  not  the  parent  of  his  affection.  By  experience 
he  knows,  that  social  love,  (if  it  mean  the  love  of  our  neighbour,)  is 
absolutely  different  from  self-love,  even  of  the  most  allowable  kind. 
Just  as  different  as  the  objects  at  which  they  point.  And  yet  it  is 
sure,  that,  if  they  are  under  due  regulations,  each  will  give  addi- 
tional force  to  the  other,  till  they  mix  together  never  to  be  divided. 

7.  And  this  universal,  disinterested  love,  is  productive  of  all  righ( 
affections.  It  is  fruitful  of  gentleness,  tenderness,  sweetness ;  of 
humanity,  courtesy,  and  affability.  It  makes  a  Christian  rejoice  in 
the  virtues  of  all,  and  bear  a  part  in  their  happiness ;  at  the  same 
time  that  he  sympathizes  with  their  pains,  and  compassionates  then 
ijifirmitifcs.     It  creates  modesty,  condescension,  prudence,  together 


i>8  A  LETTER  TO  DR.  MIDDLETOJn. 

with  calmness  and  evenness  of  temper.  It  is  the  parent  of  gene- 
rosity, openness,  and  frankness,  void  of  jealousy  and  suspicion.  It 
begets  candour,  and  willingness  to  believe  and  hope  whatever  is  kind 
and  friendly  of  every  man  ;  and  invincible  patience,  never  overcome 
of  evil,  but  overcoming  evil  with  good. 

8.  The  same  love  constrains  him  to  converse,  not  only  with  a 
strict  regard  to  truth,  but  with  artless  sincerity  and  genuiiie  simpli- 
city, as  one  in  whom  there  is  no  guile.  And  not  content  with  ab- 
staining from  all  such  expressions  as  are  contrary  to  justice  or  truth, 
he  endeavours  to  refrain  from  every  unloving  word  either  to  a* present 
or  of  an  absent  person  :  in  all  his  conversation  aiming  at  this,  either 
to  improve  hiinself  in  knowledge  or  virtue,  or  to  make  those  with 
whom  he  converses  some  way  wiser,  or  better,  or  happier  than  they 
were  before. 

9.  The  same  love  is  productive  of  all  right  actions.  It  leads  him 
into  an  earnest  and  steady  discharge  of  all  social  offices,  of  what- 
ever is  due  to  relations  of  every  kind  ;  to  his  friends,  to  his  country, 
and  to  any  particular  community  whereof  he  is  a  member.  It  pre- 
vents his  willingly  hurting  or  grieving  any  man.  It  guides  him  into 
a  uniform  practice  of  justice  and  mercy,  equally  extensive  with  the 
principle  whence  it  flows.  It  constrains  him  to  do  all  possible  good, 
of  every  possible  kind,  to  all  men  :  and  makes  him  invariably  re- 
solved, in  every  circumstance  of  life,  to  do  that  and  that  only,  to 
others,  which,  supposing  he  were  himself  in  the  same  situation,  he 
would  desire  they  should  do  to  him. 

10.  And  as  he  is  easy  to  others,  so  he  is  easy  to  himself  He  is 
free  from  the  painful  swellings  of  pride,  from  the  flames  of  anger, 
from  the  impetuous  gusts  of  irregular  self-will.  He  is  no  longer  tor- 
tured with  envy  or  malice,  or  with  unreasonable  and  hurtful  desire. 
He  is  no  more  enslaved  to  the  pleasures  of  sense,  but  has  the  full 
power  both  over  his  mind  and  body,  in  a  continued  cheerful  course 
of  sobriety,  of  temperance,  and  chastity.  He  knows  how  to  use  all 
things  in  their  place,  and  yet  is  superior  to.  them  all.  He  stands 
above  those  low  pleasures  of  imagination,  which  captivate  vulgar 
minds,  whether  arising  from  what  mortals  term  greatness,  or  novelty, 
or  beauty.  All  these  too  he  can  taste,  and  still  look  upward  ;  still 
aspire  to  nobler  enjoyments.  Neither  is  he  a  slave  to  fame  :  popular 
breath  affects  not  him  :  he  stands  steady  and  collected  in  himself. 

11.  And  he  who  seeks  no  praise,  cannot  fear  dispraise.  Cen- 
sure gives  him  no  uneasiness ;  being  conscious  to  himself,  that  he 
would  not  willingly  offend,  and  that  he  has  the  approbation  of  the 
Lord  of  all.  He  cannot  fear  want,  knowing  in  whose  hand  is  the 
earth  and  the  fulness  thereof,  and  that  it  is  impossible  for  him  to 
withhold  from  one  that  fears  him  any  manner  of  thing  that  is  good. 
He  cannot  fear  pain,  knowing  it  will  never  be  sent,  unless  it  be  for 
his  real  advantage  ;  and  that  then  his  strength  will  be  proportioned 
to  it,  as  it  has  always  been  in  times  past.  He  cannot  fear  death  ; 
being  able  to  trust  him  he  loves  with  his  soul  as  well  as  his  body ; 
yea,  glad  to  leave  the  corruptible  body  in  the  dust,  till  It  is  raised  in- 


« 


-V  LETTEK   TO   DR.    MIDDLETON.  50 

corruptible  and  immortal.  So  that  in  honour  or  shame,  in  abund- 
ance or  want,  in  ease  or  pain,  in  life,  or  in  death,  always  and  in  all 
things  he  has  learned  to  be  content,  to  be  easy,  thankful,  happy. 

12.  He  is  happy  in  knowing  there  is  a  God,  an  intelligent  Cause 
and  Lord  of  all,  and  that  he  is  not  the  produce  either  of  blind  chance 
or  inexorable  necessity.  He  is  happy  in  the  full  assurance  he  has 
that  this  Creator  and  End  of  all  things,  is  a  Being  of  boundless  wis- 
dom, of  infinite  power  to  execute  all  the  designs  of  his  wisdom,  and 
of  no  less  infinite  goodness,  to  direct  all  his  power  to  the  advantage 
of  all  his  creatures.  Nay,  even  the  consideration  of  his  immutable 
justice,  rendering  to  all  their  due,  of  his  unspotted  holiness,  of  his 
all-sufficiency  in  himself,  and  of  that  immense  ocean  of  all  perfec- 
tions, which  centre  in  God  from  eternity  to  eternity,  is  a  continual 
addition  to  the  happiness  of  a  Christian. 

13.  A  farther  addition  is  made  thereto,  while  in  contemplating 
even  the  things  that  surround  him,  that  thought  strikes  warmly  upon 
his  heart, 

"  These  are  thy  glorious  works,  Parent  of  Good  :" 

While  he  takes  knowledge  of  the  invisible  things  of  God,  even  his 
eternal  power  and  wisdom  in  the  things  that  are  seen,  the  heavens, 
the  earth,  the  fowls  of  the  air,  the  lilies  of  the  field.  How  much 
more,  while,  rejoicing  in  the  constant  care  which  he  still  takes  of 
the  work  of  his  own  hand,  he  breaks  out,  in  a  transport  of  love  and 
praise, '  O  Lord,  our  Governor !  How  excellent  is  thy  Name  in  all  the 
earth  !  Thou  that  hast  set  thy  glory  above  the  heavens  !'  While  he, 
as  it  were,  sees  the  Lord  sitting  upon  his  throne,  and  ruling  all  things 
well :  while  he  observes  the  general  Providence  of  God  co-extended 
with  his  whole  creation,  and  surveys  all  the  effects  of  it  in  the  hea- 
vens and  the  earth,  as  a  well-pleased  spectator  ;  while  he  sees  the 
wisdom  and  goodness  of  his  general  government  descending  to  every 
particular  ;  so  presiding  over  the  whole  universe,  as  over  a  single 
person,  so  watching  over  every  single  person  as  if  he  were  the  whole 
imiverse  :  how  does  he  exult,  when  he  reviews  the  various  traces  of 
the  Almighty  Goodness,  in  what  has  befallen  himself  in  the  several 
circumstances  and  changes  of  his  own  life  !  All  which,  he  now  sees, 
have  been  allotted  to  him,  and  dealt  out  in  number,  weight,  and 
measure.  With  what  triumph  of  soul,  in  surveying  either  the  gene- 
ral or  particular  Providence  of  God,  does  he  observe  every  line 
pointing  out  an  hereafter,  every  scene  opening  into  eternity. 

14.  He  is  peculiarly  and  inexpressibly  happy,  in  the  clearest  and 
fullest  conviction,  '  This  all-powerful,  all-wise,  all-gracious  Being, 
this  Governor  of  all,  loves  me.  This  lover  of  my  soul  is  always 
with  me,  is  never  absent,-  no  not  for  a  moment.  And  I  love  him  ; 
Ihere  is  none  in  heaven  but  thee,  none  on  earth  that  I  desire  beside 
thee  !  And  he  has  given  me  to  resemble  himself,  he  has  stamped  his 
linage  on  my  heart.  And  I  live  unto  him  ;  I  do  only  his  will  ;  I 
glorify  him  with  my  body  and  my  spirit.  And  it  will  not  be  long 
Mpfore  I  shall  die  unto  him  ;  I  shall  die  into  the  arms  of  God.     And 


^0  A   LETTES   TO    DR.   MrODLEfdN. 

then,  farewell  sin  and  pain  ;  then  it  only  remains,  that  I  should  liv^^ 
with  him  for  ever.' 

15.  This  is  the  plain,  naked  portraiture  of  a  Christian.  But,  be 
not  prejudiced  against  him  for  his  name.  Forgive  his  particularities 
of  opinion,  and  (what  you  think)  superstitious  modes  of  worship. 
These  are  circumstances  but  of  small  concern  ;  and  do  not  enter 
into  the  essence  of  his  character.  Cover  them  with  a  veil  of  love, 
and  look  at  the  substance  ;  his  tempers,  his  holiness,  his  happiness,    j 

Can  calm  reason  conceive  either  a  more  amiabl^^  or  a  more  desira-    " 
ble   character  ?  Is  it  your  own  1  Away  with  names  !    Away  with 
opinions  !  I  care  not  what  you  are  called.     I  ask  not,  (it  does  not 
deserve  a  thought,)  what  opinion  you  are  of;  so  you  are  conscious     i 
to  yourself,  that  you  are   the   man,  whom  I  have  been  (however     i 
faintly)  describing. 

Do  not  you  know,  you  ought  to  be  such  1  Is  the  Governor  of  the 
world  well  pleased  that  you  are  not  1  Do  you  (at  least)  desire  it  1 
I  would  to  God  that  desire  may  penetrate  your  inmost  soul ;  and 
that  you  may  have  no  rest  in  your  spirit,  till  you  are  not  only  almost, 
but  altogether  a  Christian  ! 

Sect.  II.  1*.  The  second  point  to  be  considered  is.  What  is  real, 
genuine  Christianity  ?  Whether  we  speak  of  it  as  a  principle  in  the 
soul,  or  as  a  scheme  or  system  of  doctrine. 

Christianity,  taken  in  the  latter  sense,  is,  that  system  of  doctrine, 
which  describes  the  character  above  recited,  which  promises,  it  shall 
be  mine,  (provided  I  will  not  rest  till  I  attain,)  and  which  tells  me 
how  I  may  attain  it. 

2.  First,  It  describes  this  character,  in  all  its  parts,  and  that  in  the 
most  lively  and  affecting  manner.  The  main  lines  of  this  picture 
are  beautifully  diawn  in  many  passages  of  the  Old  Testament 
These  are  filled  up  in  the  New,  retouched  and  finished  with  all  the 
art  of  God.  The  same  we  have  in  miniature  more  than  once  ;  par- 
ticularly in  the  thirteenth  chapter  of  the  former  epistle  to  the  Corin- 
thians, and  in  that  discourse  which  St.  Matthew  records,  as  delivered 
by  our  Lord,  at  his  entrance  upon  his  public  ministry. 

3.  Secondly,  Christianity  ;)rom/ses  this  character  shall  be  mine,  if 
I  will  not  rest  till  I  attain  it.  This  is  promised  in  the  Old  Testament 
and  New.  Indeed  the  New  is,  in  effect,  all  a  promise  ;  seeing 
every  description  of  the  servants  of  God  mentioned  therein,  has  the 
nature  of  a  command  ;  in  consequence  of  those  general  injunctions, 
'  Be  ye  followers  of  me,  as  I  am  of  Christ.'  1  Cor.  xi.  1.  '  Be  ye  fol- 
lowers of  them,  who  through  faith  and  patience  inherit  the  promises.' 
Heb.  vi.  13.  And  every  command  has  the  force  of  a  promise,  in  vir- 
tue of  those  general  promises :  '  A  new  heart  will  I  give  you,  and  I 
will  put  my  Spirit  within  you,  and  cause  you  to  walk  in  my  statutes, 
and  ye  shall  keep  my  judgments,  and  do  them.'  Ezek.  xxxvi.  26,  27. 
*  This  is  the  covenant  that  I  will  make  after  those  days,  saith  the 
Lord,  I  will  put  my  laws  into  their  minds  and  write  them  in  their 
hearts.'  Heb.  viii,  10,  Accordingly,  when  it  is  said,  'Thou  shalt 
love  the  Lord  thy  God,  with  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and 


A  LETTER  TO  DR.  MIDDIETON.  61 

with  all  thy  mind  ;'  it  is  not  only  a  direction  what  I  shall  do^  but  a 
promise  of  what  God  will  do  in  me  ;  exactly  equivalent  with  what  is 
%vritten  elsewhere,  '  The  Lord  thy  God  will  circumcise  thy  heart  and 
the  heart  of  thy  seed  (alluding  to  the  custom  then  in  use)  to  love 
the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart  and  with  all  thy  soul.'  Deut. 
XXX.  6. 

4.  This  being  observed,  it  will  readily  appear  to  every  serious 
person,  who  reads  the  New  Testament  with  that  care,  which  the 
importance  of  the  subject  demands,  that  every  particular  branch  of 
the  preceding  character  is  manifestly  promised  therein ;  either  ex- 
plicitly, under  the  very  form  of  a  promise,  or  virtually,  under  that  of 
description  or  command. 

5.  Christianity  tells  me,  in  the  third  place,  how  I  may  attain  the 
promise,  namely,  by  faith.  But  what  is  faith  ]  Not  an  opinion,  no 
more  than  it  is  a  form  of  words ;  not  any  number  of  opinions  put 
together,  be  they  ever  so  true.  A  string  of  opinions  is  no  more 
Christian  faith,  than  a  string  of  beads  is  Christian  holiness. 

II  is  not  an  assent  to  any  opinion,  or  any  number  of  opinions.  A 
man  may  assent  to  three,  or  three  and  twenty  creeds ;  he  may  assent 
to  all  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  (at  least,  as  far  as  he  understands 
them,)  and  yet  have  no  Christian  faith  at  all. 

6.  The  faith  by  v/hich  the  promise  is  attained  is  represented  by 
Christianity,  as  a  power  wrought  by  the  Almighty  in  an  i.mmortal 
spirit,  inhabiting  a  house  of  clay,  to  see  through  that  veil  into  the 
world  of  spirits,  into'thiugs  invisible  and  eternal :  a  power  to  discern 
those  things  which  with  eyes  of  flesh  and  blood  no  man  hath  seen 
or  can  see ;  either  by  reason  of  their  nature,  which  (though  they 
surround  us  on  every  side,)  is  not  perceivable  by  these  gross  senses  ; 
or  by  reason  of  their  distance,  as  being  yet  afar  off  in  the  bosom  of 
eternity. 

7.  This  is  Christian  faith  in  the  general  notion  of  it.  In  its  more 
particular  notion  it  is,  a  divine  evidence  or  conviction  wrought  in  the 
heart,  that  God  is  reconciled  to  me  through  his  Son :  inseparably 
joined  with  a  confideiice  in  him,  as  a  gracious,  reconciled  Father, 
as  for  all  things,  so  especially  for  all  those  good  things  which  are  in- 
visible and  eternal. 

To  believe  (in  the  Christian  sense)  is  then  to  walk  in  the  light  of 
eternity :  and  to  have  a  clear  sight  of,  and  confidence  in  the  Most 
High,  reconciled  to  me  through  the  Son  of  his  love. 

8.  Now  how  highly  desirable  is  such  a  faith,  were  it  only  on  its 
own  account !  For  how  little  does  the  wisest  of  men  know  of  any 
thing  more  than  he  can  see  with  his  eyes  !  What  clouds  and  dark- 
ness cover  the  whole  scene  of  things  invisible  and  eternal !  What 
does  he  know  even  of  himself  as  to  his  invisible  part  1  What  of  his 
future  manner  of  existence  1  How  melancholy  an  account  does  the 
prying,  learned  philosopher,  (perhaps  the  wisest  and  best  of  all 
Heathens,)  the  great,  the  venerable  Marcus  Antoninus  give  of  these 
fhings  *?  What  was  the  result  of  all  his  serious  researches  ?  Of  his 
high  and  deep  contemplations  1  '« Either  dissipation  (of  the  soul  ad 

Vol.  9.— G 


G2  A   LETTER   TO   DR.    MIDDLETO?.% 

well  as  the  body,  into  the  common,  unthinking  mass)  or  re-absorp» 
tion  into  the  universal  fire,  the  unintelligent  source  of  all  things  :  or. 
some  unknown  manner  of  conscious  existence,  alter  the  body  sinks 
to  rise  no  more."  One  of  these  three  he  supposed  must  succeed 
death,  but  which  he  had  no  light  to  determine.  Poor  Antoninus  ! 
With  all  his  wealth,  his  honour,  his  power  !  With  all  his  wisdom  and 
philosophy ! 

"  What  points  of  knowledge  did  he  gain  ? 
That  lile  is  sacred  all — and  vain  ! 
Sacred  how  high  !  And  vain  how  low  ! 
He  could  not  tell — But  died  to  know." 

9.  He  died  to  know  !  And  so  must  you,  unless  you  are  now  a 
partaker  of  Christian  faith.  O  consider  this.  Nay,  and  consider 
not  only  how  little  you  know  of  the  immensity  of  the  things  that 
are  beyond  sense  and  time,  but  how  uncertainly  do  you  know  even 
that  little  !  How  faintly  glimmering  a  light  is  that  you  have  !  Can 
you  properly  be  said  to  know  any  of  these  things  1  Is  that  knowledge 
any  more  than  bare  conjecture  1  And  the  reason  is  plain.  You 
have  no  senses  suitable  to  invisible  or  eternal  objects.  What 
desiderata  then,  especially  to  the  rational,  the  reflecting  part  of  man- 
kind, are  these  1  A  more  extensive  knowledge  of  things  invisible  and 
eternal :  a  greater  certainty  in  whatever  knowledge  of  them  we 
have  ;  and,  in  order  to  both,  faculties  capable  of  discerning  things 
invisible. 

10.  Is  it  not  so  ?  Let  impartial  reason  speak.  Does  not  every 
thinking  man  want  a  window,  not  so  much  in  his  neighbour's,  as  in 
his  own  breast  1  He  wants  an  opening  there,  of  whatever  kind, 
that  might  let  in  light  from  eternity.  He  is  pained  to  be  thus  feeling 
after  God  so  darkly,  so  uncertainly  ;  to  know  so  little  of  God,  and 
indeed  so  little  of  any  beside  material  objects.  He  is  concerned, 
that  he  must  sec  that  little,  not  directly,  but  in  the  dim,  sullied  glass 
of  sense  ;  and  consequently  so  imperfectly  and  obscurely,  that  it  is 
all  a  mere  enigma  still. 

11.  Now  these  very  desiderata  faith  supplies..  It  gives  a  more  ex- 
tensive knowledge  of  things  invisible,  showing  what  eye  had  not 
seen,  nor  ear  heard,  neither  could  it  before  enter  into  our  heart  to 
conceive.  And  all  these  it  shows  in  the  clearest  light,  Avith  the 
fullest  certainty  and  evidence.  For  it  does  not  leave  us  to  receive 
our  notice  of  them  by  mere  reflection  from  the  dull  glass  of  sense  ; 
but  resolves  a  thousand  enigmas  of  the  highest  concern,  by  giving 
faculties  suited  to  things  invisible.  Oh  !  Who  would  not  wish  for 
such  a  faith,  were  it  only  on  these  accounts  ?  How  much  more,  if 
by  this  I  may  receive  the  promise,  I  may  attain  all  that  holiness  and 
happiness ! 

12.  So  Christianity  tells  me;  and  so  I  find  it,  may  every  real 
Christian  say.  I  now  am  assured  that  these  things  are  so  ;  1  expe- 
rience them  in  my  own  breast.  What  Christianity  (considered  as  a 
doctrine)  promised,  is  accomplished  in  my  soul.  And  Christianity, 
considered  as  £^n  inward  principle,  is  the  completion  of  all  thosj? 


A   LETTER   TO   DH.    lillDDLETO:^.  bo 

promises.  It  is  holiness  and  happiness,  the  image  of  God  impressed 
on  a  created  spirit ;  a  fountain  of  peace  and  love  springing  up  into 
everlasting  life. 

Sect.  III.  1.  And  this  I  conceive  to  be  the  strongest  evidence  of 
the  truth  of  Christianity.  I  do  not  undervalue  traditional  evidence. 
Let  it  have  its  place  and  its  due  honour.  It  is  highly  serviceable  in 
its  kind,  and  in  its  degree.  And  yet  I  cannot  set  it  on  a  level  with 
this. 

It  is  generally  supposed,  that  traditional  evidence  is  weakened  by 
length  of  time  ;  as  it  must  necessarily  pass  through  so  many  hands, 
in  a  continued  succession  of  ages.  But  no  length  of  time  can  pos- 
sibly affect  the  strength  of  this  internal  evidence.  It  is  equally 
strong,  equally  new,  through  the  course  of  seventeen  hundred 
years.  It  passes  now,  even  as  it  has  done  from  the  beginning,  di- 
i^ctly  from  God  into  the  believing  soul.  Do  you  suppose  time  will 
ever  dry  up  this  streann  1  O  no.     It  shall  never  be  cut  off. 

Labilur  el  labetur  in  omne  vohibilis  avum. 

2.  Traditional  evidence  is  of  an  extremely  comphcated  nature, 
necessarily  including  so  many  and  so  various  considerations,  that 
only  men  of  a  strong  and  clear  understanding  can  be  sensible  of  its 
full  force.  On  the  contrary,  how  plain  and  simple  is  this  !  And 
how  level  to  the  lowest  capacity !  Is  not  this  the  sum,  '  One  thing  I 
know :  I  ivas  blind,  but  now  I  see.''  An  argument  so  plain,  that  a 
peasant,  a  woman,  a  child,  may  feel  all  its  force. 

3.  The  traditional  evidence  of  Christianity  stands  as  it  were  a 
great  way  off;  and  therefore  although  it  speaks  loud  and  clear,  yet 
makes  a  less  lively  impression.  It  gives  us  an  account  of  what  was 
transacted  long  ago,  in  far  distant  times  as  well  as  places.  Whereas 
the  inward  evidence  is  intimately  present  to  all  persons,  at  all  times, 
and  in  all  places.  *  It  is  nigh  thee,  in  thy  mouth,  and  in  thy  heart, 
if  thou  believest  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.'  This  then  is  the  record, 
this  is  the  evidence,  emphatically  so  called,  That  God  hath  given  unto 
us  eternal  life ;  and  this  life  is  in  his  Son. 

4.  If  then  it  were  possible  (which  I  conceive  it  is  not)  to  shake 
the  traditional  evidence  of  Christianity,  still  he  that  has  the  internal 
evidence,  (and  every  true  believer  hath  the  witness  or  evi^Jence  in 
himself,)  would  stand  firm  and  unshaken.  Still  he  could  say  to  those 
who  were  striking  at  the  external  evidence,  'Beat  on  the  sack  of 
Aiiaxagoras.'  But  you  can  no  more  hurt  my  evidence  of  Chris- 
tianity, than  the  tyrant  could  hurt  the  spirit  of  that  wise  man. 

5.  I  have  sometimes  been  almost  inclined  to  believe,  that  the  wis- 
dom of  God  has,  in  most  later  ages,  permitted  the  external  evidence 
of  Christianity  to  be  more  or  less  clogged  and  encumbered  for  this 
very  end,  that  men  (of  reflection  especially)  might  not  altogether 
rest  there,  but  be  constrained  to  look  into  themselves  also,  and  attend 
to  the  light  shining  in  their  hearts. 

Nay,  it  seems,  (if  it  be  allowed  for  us  to  pry  so  far  into  the  reasons 
jsf  the  divine  dispensations,)  that  particularly  in  this  age,  God  suflfer? 


64  A  LETTER  TO  DR.  MIDDLETOJT. 

all  kinds  of  objections  to  be  raised  against  the  traditional  evidence  oi 
Christianity,  that  men  of"  understanding,  though  unwiliicg  to  give  ii 
up,  yet,  at  the  same  time  they  defend  this  evidence,  may  not  rest  the 
whole  strength  of  their  cause  thereon,  but  seek  a  deeper  and  firmer 
support  for  it. 

6.  Without  this,  I  cannot  but  doubt,  whether  they  can  long  main- 
tain their  cause ;  whether,  if  they  do  not  obey  the  loud  call  of  God, 
and  lay  far  more  stress  than  they  have  hitherto  done,  on  this  internal 
evidence  of  Christianity,  they  will  not,  one  after  another,  give  up 
the  external,  and  (in  heart  at  least)  go  over  to  those  whom  they  are 
now  contending  with  ;  so  that,  in  a  century  or  two,  the  people  ot" 
England  will  be  fairly  divided  into  real  Deists  and  real  Christians, 
And  I  apprehend  this  would  be  no  loss  at  all,  but  rather  an  advan- 
tage to  the  Christian  cause ;  nay,  perhaps  it  would  be  the  speediest, 
yea,  the  only  effectual  way  of  bringing  all  reasonable  Deists  to  be 
Christians. 

7.  May  I  be  permitted  to  speak  freely  ?  May  I,  without  offence, 
ask  of  you  that  are  called  Christians,  what  real  loss  would  you  sus- 
tain in  giving  up  your  present  opinion,  that  the  Christian  system  is  oi 
God  1  Though  you  bear  the  name,  you  are  not  Christians  ;  you  have 
neither  Christian  faith  nor  love.  You  have  no  divine  evidence  oi 
things  unseen  :  you  have  not  entered  into  the  holiest  by  the  blood  oi 
Jesus.  You  do  not  love  God  with  all  your  hearts ;  neither  do  you 
love  your  neighbour  as  yourselves.  You  are  neither  happy  nor  holy. 
You  have  not  learned  in  every  state  therewith  to  be  content;  to  re- 
joice evermore,  even  in  want,  pain,  death  ;  and  in  every  thing  to  give 
thanks.  You  are  not  holy  in  heart;  superior  to  pride,  to  anger,  to 
foolish  desires.  Neither  are  you  holy  in  life  :  you  do  not  walk  as 
Christ  also  walked.  Does  not  the  main  of  your  Christianity  lie  in 
your  opinions ?  Decked  with  a  few  outward  observances?  For  as 
to  morality,  even  honest  Heathen  morality,  (O  let  me  utter  a  melan- 
choly truth,)  many  of  those  whom  you  style  Deists,  there  is  reason 
to  fear  have  far  more  of  it  than  you. 

8.  Go  on,  gentlemen,  and  prosper.  Shame  these  nominal  Christ- 
ians out  of  that  poor  superstition  which  they  call  Christianity.  Rea- 
son, rally,  laugh  them  out  of  their  dead,  empty  forms,  void  of  spirit, 
of  faith,  of  love.  Convince  them,  that  such  mean  pageantry  (for  such 
it  manifestly  is,  if  there  is  nothing  in  the  heart  correspondent  with  the 
outward  show)  is  absolutely  unworthy,  you  need  not  say  of  God,  but 
even  of  any  man  that  is  endued  with  common  understanding.  Show 
them,  that  while  they  are  endeavouring  to  please  God  thus,  they  are 
only  beating  the  air.  Know  your  time  ;  press  on ;  push  your  victo- 
ries, till  you  have  conquered  all  that  know  not  God.  And  then  He, 
whom  neither  they  nor  you  know  now,  shall  rise  and  gird  himself  with 
strength,  and  go  forth  in  his  almighty  love,  and  sweetly  conquer  you 
all  together. 

9.  O  that  the  time  were  come !  How  do  I  long  for  you  to  be  par- 
takers of  the  exceeding  great  and  precious  promise  !  How  am  1 
pained  when  I  hear  any  of  you  using  those  silly  terms,  which  the  men 


A  LETTER  TO  DR.  BUODLBTOV.  •ftd 

«f  form  have  taught  you,  calling  the  mention  of  the  only  thing  you 
want,  Cant !  The  deepest  wisdom,  the  highest  happiness,  Enihu- 
dasm  !  What  ignorance  is  this !  How  extremely  despicable  would 
it  make  you  in  the  eyes  of  any  but  a  Christian  !  But  he  cannot  de- 
spise you,  who  loves  you  as  his  own  soul,  who  is  ready  to  lay  down 
his  life  for  your  sake. 

10.  Perhaps  you  will  say,  "  But  this  internal  evidence  of  Christ- 
^^anity  affects  only  those  in  whom  the  promise  is  fulfilled.  1 1  is  no  evi- 
dence to  me."  There  is  truth  in  this  objection.  It  does  affect 
them  chiefly  ;  but  it  does  not  affect  them  only.  It  cannot,  in  the  na- 
ture of  things,  be  so  strong  an  evidence  to  others  as  it  is  to  them. 
And  yet  it  may  bring  a  degree  of  evidence,  it  may  reflect  some  light 
on  you  also. 

For,  first.  You  see  the  beauty  and  loveliness  of  Christianity,  when 
it  is  rightly  understood.  And  you  are  sure  there  is  nothing  to  be 
desired  in  comparison  of  it. 

Secondly,  You  know  the  Scripture  promises,  and  says,  It  is  at- 
tained by  faith,  and  by  no  other  way. 

Thirdly,  You  see  clearly  how  desh'able  Christian  faith  is,  even  on 
account  of  its  own  intrinsic  value. 

Fourthly,  You  are  a  witness,  that  the  holiness  and  happiness  above 
described  can  be  attained  no  other  way.  The  more  you  have  laboured 
after  virtue  and  happiness,  the  more  convinced  you  are  of  this.  Thus 
far  then  you  need  not  lean  upon  other  men :  thus  far  you  have  per 
sonal  experience. 

Fifthly,  What  reasonable  assurance  can  you  have  of  things  whereof 
you  have  not  personal  experience  ]  Suppose  the  question  were, 
Can  the  blind  be  restored  to  sight?  This  you  have  not  yourself  ex- 
perienced. How  then  will  you  know  that  such  a  thing  ever  was  ? 
Can  there  be  an  easier  or  surer  way  than  to  talk  with  one  or  some 
number  of  men  who  were  blind,  but  are  now  restored  to  sight  ? 
They  cannot  be  deceived  as  to  the  fact  in  question  ;  the  nature  of 
the  thing  leaves  no  room  for  this.  And  if  they  are  honest  men, 
(which  you  may  learn  from  other  circumstances,)  they  will  not  de- 
ceive you. 

Now  transfer  this  to  the  case  before  us ;  and  those  who  were 
blind,  but  now  see  ;  those  who  were  sick  many  years,  but  now  are 
healed ;  those  who  were  miserable,  but  now  are  happy,  will  afford 
you  also  a  very  strong  evidence  of  the  truth  of  Christianity:  as  stron"- 
as  can  be  in  the  nature  of  things,  till  you  experience  it  in  your  own 
soul.  And  this,  though  it  be  allowed  they  are  but  plain  men,  and, 
in  general,  of  weak  understanding ;  nay,  though  some  of  them 
should  be  mistaken  in  other  points,  and  hokl  opinions  which  cannot 
be  defended. 

1 1 .  All  this  may  be  allowed  concerning  the  primitive  fathers  :  I 
mean  particularly  Clemens  Romanus,  Ignatius,  Polycarp,  Justin 
Martyr,  Irenajus,  Origen,  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  Cyprian;  to 
whom  I  would  add  Macarius  and  Ephraim  Syrus. 

I  allow  that  some  of  these  had  not  strong  natural  sense,  that  few 

Gs3 


66  A   lEfTER   TO   DH.    MIDDLEXOS. 

of  them  liad  much  learning,  and  none  the  assistances  which  our  age 
enjoys,  in  some  respects,  above  all  that  went  before. 

Hence,  I  doubt  not  but  whoever  will  be  at  the  pains  of  reading 
over  their  ^mtings  for  that  poor  end,  he  will  find  many  mistakes, 
many  weak  suppositions,  and  many  ill-drawn  conclusions. 

12.  And  yet  I  exceedingly  reverence  them  as  well  as  their  wri- 
tings, and  esteem  them  very  highly  in  love.  I  reverence  them  be- 
cause they  were  Christians,  such  Christians  as  are  above  described 
And  I  reverence  their  writings,  because  they  describe  true,  genuine 
Christianity ;  and  direct  us  to  the  strongest  evidence  of  the  Chris- 
tian doctrine. 

Indeed  in  addressing  the  Heathens  of  those  times  they  intermix 
other  arguments ;  particularly  that  drawn  from  numerous  miracles, 
which  were  then  performed  in  the  church  ;  which  they  needed 
only  to  open  their  eyes  and  see  daily  wrought  in  the  face  of  the 
sun. 

But  still  they  never  relinquish  this  ;  "  What  the  Scripture  pro- 
mises I  enjoy.  Come  and  see  what  Christianity  has  done  here : 
and  acknov/ledge  it  is  of  God." 

I  reverence  these  ancient  Christians  (with  all  their  failings)  the 
more,  because  I  see  so  few  Christians  now  ;  because  I  read  so  little 
in  the  writings  of  later  times,  and  hear  so  little  of  genuine  Chris- 
tianity :  and  because  most  of  the  modern  Christians^  (so  called)  not 
content  with  being  wholly  ignorant  of  it,  are  deeply  prejudiced 
against  it,  calling  it  enthusiasm,  and  I  know  not  what. 

That  the  God  of  power  and  love  may  make  both  them  and  you. 
and  me,  such  Christians  as  those  fathers  were,  is  the  earnest  prayer 
of,  Rev.  Sir, 

Your  real  friend  and  servant, 

John  Wesley 

Jan.  24,  1748-9. 


A  LETTER 

TO    THE 

RT,  REV.  THE  LORD  BISHOP  OF  GLOUCESTER- 

OCCASIONED  BY  HIS  TRACT  ON  THE  OFFICE  AND  OPE^RATIONS 
OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT. 


My  Lord, 

YOUR  lordship  well  observes,  "  to  employ  buffoonery  in  the  ser- 
vice of  religion,  is  to  violate  the  majesty  of  truth,  and  to  deprive  it 
of  a  fair  hearing.  To  examine,  men  must  be  serious."  (Pref.  p.  11.) 
I  will  endeavour  to  be  so,  in  all  the  following  pages.  And  the  rather, 
not  only  because  I  am  writing  to  a  person  who  is  so  far,  and  in  so 
many  respects  my  superior,  but  also  because  of  the  importance  ol 
the  subject.  For  is  the  question  only.  What  1  am  ?  A  madman,  or 
a  man  in  his  senses  ]  A  knave,  or  an  honest  man  1  No  :  this  is  only 
brought  in  by  way  of  illustration.  The  question  is,  of  the  Office 
and  Operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  with  which  the  doctrine  of  the 
New-Birth,  and,  indeed,  the  whole  of  real  religion,  is  connected. 
On  a  subject  of  so  deep  concern,  I  desire  to  be  serious  as  death. 
But,  at  the  same  time,  your  lordship  will  permit  me  to  use  great 
plainness.  And  this  I  am  the  more  emboldened  to  do,  because  by 
naming  my  name,  your  lordship,  as  it  were,  condescends  to  meet  mer 
on  even  ground, 

I  shall  consider,  first,  what  your  lordship  advances  concerning  me; 
and  then  what  is  advanced  concerning  the  Operations  of  the  Holy 
Spirit. 

1.  First,  concerning  me.  It  is  true,  I  am  here  dealing  in  cramht 
repetila :  reciting  objections  which  have  been  urged,  and  answered 
a  hundred  times.  But  as  your  lordship  is  pleased  to  repeat  them 
again,  1  am  obliged  to  repeat  the  answers. 

Your  lordship  begins,  "  If  the  false  prophet  pretend  to  some  extra- 
ordinary  measure  of  the  Spirit,  we  are  directed  to  try  that  spirit  b) 
James,  chap.  iii.  17."  I  ansAver,  1,  (as  I  have  done  many  times  be- 
fore,) I  do  not  pretend  to  any  extraordinary  measure  of  the  Spirit. 
I  pretend  to  no  other  measure  of  it  than  may  be  claimed  by  every 
Christian  minister,  2,  Where  are  we  directed  to  try  prophets  by  thi.«i 
text  ]  How  does  it  appear,  that  it  was  given  for  any  such  purpose  ? 
It  is  certain  we  may  try  Christians  hereby,  whether  thp.y  are  real  oi 
pretended  ones.  But  I  know  not  that  either  St.  James  or  any  othei 
inspired  writer,  gives  us  the  least  hint  of  trying  prophets  thereby. 

Your  lordship  adds,  "  In  this  rule  or  direction  for  the  trial  of  spi- 
yits,  the  marks  are  to  be  applied  only  negatively.     The  man  in  whom 


ti&  A   LEITEB   TO   THE 

they  are  not  found,  hath  not  the  wisdom  from  above.  But  We  aw 
not  to  conclude,  that  he  has  it,  in  whom  any  or  all  of  them  are  found." 
(p.  118.)  We  are  not  to  conclude,  that  he  is  a  prophet:  for  the 
apostle  says  nothing  about  prophets.  But  may  we  not  conclude,  the 
man  in  whom  all  these  are  found,  has  the  wisdom  from  above  1  Surely 
we  may  :  for  these  are  the  essential  parts  of  that  wisdom.  And  can 
he  have  all  the  parts,  and  not  have  the  whole  ? 

Is  not  this  enough  to  show,  that  the  apostle  is  here  giving  "  a  set 
of  marks  not  to  detect  impostor-prophets,"  hut  impostor-Christians? 
Those  that  impose  either  upon  themselves  or  others,  as  if  they  were 
Christians,  when  they  are  not  ] 

In  what  follows,  I  shall  simply  consider  the  argument,  without  di- 
rectly addressing  your  lordship. 

"  Apply  these  marks  to  the  features  of  modern  fanatics,  especially 
Mr.  John  Wesley.  He  has  laid  claim  to  almost  every  apostolic  gift, 
in  as  full  and  ample  a  manner  as  they  were  possessed  of  old,"  p. 
119. 

The  miraculous  gifts  bestowed  upon  the  apostles  are  enumerated 
in  two  places.  First,  '  In  my  name  they  shall  cast  out  devils  :  they 
shall  speak  with  new  tongues :  they  shall  take  up  serpents :  if  they 
drink  any  deadly  thing,  it  shall  not  hurt  them :  they  shall  lay  hands 
on  the  sick,  and  ihey  shall  recover.'  (Mark  xvi.  17,  18.)  Second, 
*  To  one  is  given  the  word  of  wisdom,  to  another  the  word  of  know- 
ledge, to  another  faith,  to  another  the  gifts  of  healing,  to  another  the 
working  of  miracles,  to  another  prophecy,  to  another  the  discern- 
ment of  spirits,  to  another  tongues,  to  another  the  interpretation  oi 
tongues.'  1  Cor.  xii.  8,  9,  10. 

Do  "  I  lay  claim  to  almost  every  one  of  these,  in  nsfull  and  ample 
a  manner  as  they  were  possessed  of  old  ?" 

Five  of  them  are  enumerated  in  the  former  catalogue  :  to  three 
of  which,  '  speaking  with  new  tongues,  taking  up  serpents,  drinking 
deadly  things,"  it  is  not  even  pretended  I  lay  any  claim  at  all.  In 
the  latter,  nine  are  enumerated.  And  as  to  seven  of  these,  none 
has  yet  seen  good  to  call  me  in  question  :  miraculous  wisdom,  or 
knowledge,  or  faith,  prophecy,  discernment  of  spirits,  strange  tongues, 
and  the  interpretation  of  tongues.  What  becomes  then  of  the  asser- 
tion, that  I  lay  claim  to  almost  every  one  of  them,  in  the  most  full  and 
ftmple  manner  ?  Do  I  lay  claim  to  any  one  of  them  1  To  prove  that 
I  do,  my  own  words  are  produced,  extracted  from  an  account  ol 
the  occurrences  of  about  sixteen  years. 

I  shall  set  them  down  naked  and  unadorned.  1.  May  13,  1740, 
"  The  Devil  stirred  up  his  servants  to  make  all  the  noise  they  could. 
2.  May  3,  1T41,  I  explained  to  a  vast  muUitude  of  people,  'What 
doth  the  Lord  require  of  thee,  but  to  do  justly,  to  love  mercy,  and  to 
walk  humbly  with  thy  God.'  The  Devil's  children  fought  valiantly 
for  their  master,  that  bis  kingdom  should  not  be  destroyed.  And 
many  stones  fell  on  my  right  hand  and  on  my  left.  3.  April  3,  1740^ 
i^ome  or  other  of  the  children  of  Belial,  had  laboured  to  disturb  u? 
several  nights  before.     Now  all  the  street  was  filled  with  i^eople^ 


BISHOP    OF   GLOUCESTEB.  69 

shouting,  cursing,  swearing,  and  ready  to  swallow  the  ground  with 
rage.  (p.  120.)  4.  June  27,  1747,  I  found  only  one  person  among 
them,  who  knew  the  love  of  God  before  my  brother  came.  No 
wonder  the  Devil  was  so  still :  *  for  his  goods  were  in  peace.'  5. 
April  29,  1753,  1  preached  at  Durham,  to  a  quiet,  stupid  congrega- 
tion, (p.  121.)  6.  May  9,  1740,  I  was  a  little  surprised,  at  some 
who  were  buffeted  of  Satan  in  an  unusual  manner,  by  such  a  spirit 
of  laughter  as  they  could  in  nowise  resist.  I  could  scarcely  have 
believed  the  account  they  gave  me,  had  1  not  known  the  same  thing 
ten  or  eleven  years  ago,  when  both  my  brother  and  I  were  seized  in 
the  same  manner.  (If  any  man  call  this  hysterics,  I  am  not  con- 
cerned :  I  think  and  let  think.)  7.  May  21,  1740,  In  the  evening, 
such  a  spirit  of  laughter  was  among  us,  that  many  were  much  of- 
fended. But  the  attention  of  fill  was  soon  fixed  on  poor  L —  S — , 
whom  we  all  knew  to  be  no  dissembler.  One  so  violently  and  va- 
riously torn  of  the  evil  one,  did  I  never  see  before.  Sometimes  she 
laughed  till  almost  strangled  ;  then  broke  out  into  cursing  and  blas- 
pheming. At  last  she  faintly  called  on  Christ  to  help  her.  And  the 
violence  of  her  pangs  ceased.  (Let  any  one  who  please  impute  this 
likewise  to  hysterics.  Only  permit  me  to  think  otherwise.)  8, 
May  17,  1740,  I  found  more  and  more  undeniable  proofs,  that  we 
have  need  to  watch  and  pray  every  moment.  Outward  trials  indeed 
were  now  removed.  But  so  much  the  more  did  inward  trials  abound ; 
and  'if  one  member  suffered,  all  the  members  suffered  with  it.'  So 
strange  a  sympathy  did  I  never  observe  before,  whatever  consider- 
able temptation  fell  on  any  one,  unaccountably  spreading  itself  to  the 
rest:  so  that  exceedingly  few  were  able  to  escape  it."  p.  122,  123. 
I  know  not  what  these  eight  quotations  prove,  but  that  I  believe 
the  Devil  still  variously  tempts  and  troubles  good  men ;  while  he 
'  works  with  energy  in  the  children  of  disobedience.'  Certainly 
they  do  not  prove  that  I  lay  claim  to  any  of  the  preceding  gifts. 
Let  us  see  whether  any  more  is  proved,  by  the  ten  next  quotations. 
1.  "So  many  living  witnesses  hath  God  given,  that  his  hand  is  still 
stretched  out  to  heal,"  (namely,  the  souls  of  sinners,  as  the  whole 
paragraph  fixes  the  sense,)  "  and  that  signs  and  wonders  are  even 
now  wrought,"  (p.  124,)  namely,  in  the  conversion  of  the  greatest 
sinners.  2.  "  Among  the  poor  colliers  of  Placey,  Jo.  Lane,  then 
nine  or  ten  years  old,  was  one  of  the  first  that  found  peace  with 
God.  (ibid.)  3.  Mrs.  Nowers  said,  her  little  son  appeared  to  have 
a  continual  fear  of  God,  and  an  awful  sense  of  his  presence. — A 
few  days  since  (she  said)  he  broke  out  into  prayers  aloud,  and  said, 
I  shall  go  to  heaven  soon."  This  child  (when  he  began  to  have  the 
fear  of  God)  was  (as  his  parents  said)  just  three  years  old.  4.  I 
did  receive  that "  account  of  the  young  woman  of  Manchester  from 
her  own  mouth."  But  I  pass  no  judgment  on  it,  good  or  bad  ;  nor, 
5.  On  «*the  trance,''''  (p.  126,)  as  her  mother  called  it,  of  S.  T.  nei- 
ther denying  nor  affirming  the  truth  of  it.  6.  "  You  deny  that  God 
does  work  those  effects ;  at  least  that  he  works  them  in  this  manner , 
I  affirm  both.     I  have  seen  very  many  persons  changed  in  a  momen 


50  A   LETTER   TO   THU 

from  the  spirit  of  fear,  horror,  despair,  to  the  spirit  of  love,  joy,  and 
praise.  In  several  of  them  this  change  was  v^rought  in  a  dream,  or 
during  a  strong  representation  to  their  mind,  of  Christ  either  on  the 
cross,  or  in  glory."  p.  127. 

"  But  here  the  symptoms  of  grace  and  of  perdition  are  interwoven 
and  confounded  with  one  another."  (p.  128.)  No.  Though  light 
followed  darkness,  yet  they  were  not  interwoven,  much  less  con- 
founded with  each  other.  7.  "  But  some  imputed  the  work  to  the 
force  of  imagination,  or  even  to  the  delusion  of  the  Devil."  (ibid.) 
They  did  so  ;  which  made  me  say,  8.  « I  fear  we  hare  grieved  the 
Spirit  of  the  jealous  God,  by  questioning  his  work.'  (ibid.)  9.  "Yet 
he  says  himself,  these  symptoms  1  can  no  more  impute  to  any  natu- 
ral cause,  than  to  the  Spirit  of  God.  I  make  no  doubt,  it  was  Satan 
tearing  them  as  they  were  coming  to  Christ."  (p.  129.)  But  these 
symptoms,  and  the  work  mentioned  before,  are  wholly  different  things. 
The  work  spoken  of  is  the  conversion  of  sinners  to  God  :  these 
symptoms  are  cries  and  bodily  pain.  The  very  next  instance  makes 
this  plain.  10.  "I  visited  a  poor  old  woman.  Her  trials  had  been 
uncommon  :  inexpressible  agonies  of  mind,  joined  with  all  sorts  of 
bodily  pain  :  not,  it  seemed,  from  any  natural  cause,  but  the  direct 
operation  of  Satan."  p.  130. 

Neither  do  any  of  those  quotations  prove  that  I  lay  claim  to  any 
miraculous  gift. 

"  Such  was  the  evangelic  state  of  things,  when  Mr.  W.  first  en- 
tered on  this  ministry :  who  seeina;  himself  surrounded  with  sub- 
jects, so  harmoniously  disposed,  thus  triumphantly  exults."  To 
illustrate  this,  let  us  add  the  date.  "  Such  was  the  evangelical  state 
of  things,  Aug.  9,  1750."  (On  that  day,  I  preached  that  sermon:) 
"when  Mr.  W. first  entered  on  this  ministry. ^^  Nay,  that  was  in  the 
year  1738.  So  I  triumphed,  because  i  saw  what  would  be  twelve 
years  after ! 

Let  us  see  what  the  next  ten  quotations  prove.  1.  "  In  applying 
these  words, '  I  came  not  to  call  the  righteous,  but  sinners  to  repent- 
ance,' my  soul  was  so  enlarged,  that  methought  I  could  have  cried 
out,  (in  another  sense  than  poor,  vain  Archimedes,)  Give  me  where 
to  stand,  and  I  will  shake  the  earth."  (p.  130.)  I  meant  neither 
more  nor  less,  (though  I  will  not  justify  the  use  of  so  strong  an  ex- 
pression,) than  I  was  so  deeply  penetrated  with  a  sense  of  the  love 
of  God  to  sinnei^s,  that  it  seemed,  if  I  could  have  declared  it  to  all 
the  world,  they  could  not  but  be  moved  thereby. 

"  Here  then  was  a  scene  well  prepared  for  a  good  actor,  and  ex- 
cellently ^^iecZ  ttp  for  the  part  he  was  to  play."  But  how  came  so 
good  an  actor  to  begin  playing  the  part  twelve  years  before  the  scene 
was  fitted  up  ? 

"  He  sets  out  with  declaring  his  mission.  2.  I  cried  aloud,  '  All 
things  are  ready  :  come  ye  to  the  marriage.'  I  then  delivered  my 
message."  And  does  not  every  minister  do  the  same  whenever  he 
preaches  ]  But  how  is  this  1  "  He  sets  out  with  declaring  his  mis* 
sron !"     Nay,  but  this  was  ten  years  after  my  setting  out ! 


BISHOP  OF  GLOUCESTER.  Vl 

•S.  "  My  heart  was  not  wholly  resigned.  Yet  I  know  he  heard 
hiy  voice.  4.  The  longer  1  spoke  the  more  strength  1  had  :  till  at 
twelve,  I  was  as  one  refreshed  with  wine.  5.  1  explained  the  na^ 
ture  of  inward  religion,  words  flowing  upon  me  faster  than  I  could 
speak.  6.  I  intended  to  have  given  an  exhortation  to  the  society. 
But  as  soon  as  we  met,  the  Spirit  of  supphcation  fell  upon  us,  (on 
the  congregation  as  well  as  me,)  so  that  I  could  hardly  do  any  thing 
but  pray  and  give  thanks."  (p.  132,  133.)  1  believe  every  true 
Christian  may  experience  all  that  is  contained  in  these  three  in- 
stances. 7.  "  The  spirit  of  prayer  was  so  poured  upon  us  all,  that 
we  could  only  speak  to  God.  8,  Many  were  seated  on  a  wall) 
which,  in  the  middle  of  the  sermon,  lell  down ;  but  not  one  was 
hurt  at  all.  Nor  was  there  an}  interruption,  either  of  my  speaking, 
or  of  the  attentioji  of  the  hearers.  0.  The  mob  had  just  broke 
open  the  doors,  and  while  they  burst  in  at  one  door,  we  walked  out 
at  the  other.  Nor  did  one  man  take  any  notice  ot  us,  though  we 
were  within  live  yards  of  each  other."  (p.  133,  134,  135.)  The 
fact  was  just  so.  I  do  not  attempt  to  account  for  it ;  because  I  can« 
not.  10.  "The  next  miracle  was  on  his  friends."  They  were  no 
friends  of  mine.  I  had  seen  few  of  them  before  in  my  life.  Nei- 
ther do  I  say  or  think  it  was  any  miracle  at  all,  that  they  were  all 
"  silent  while  I  spoke  ;"  or  that  "  the  moment  I  had  done,  the  chain 
fell  off,  and  they  all  began  talking  at  once." 

Do  any  or  all  of  these  quotations  prove  that  I  "lay  claim  to  almost 
every  miraculous  gift  ]" 

Will  the  eight  following  quotations  prove  any  more  ?  1 .  "  Some 
heard  perfectly  well  on  the  side  of  the  opposite  hill,  which  was 
seven-score  yards  from  the  place  where  I  stood."  (p.  135.)  I  be- 
lieve they  did,  as  it  was  a  calm  day,  and  the  hill  rose  gradually  like 
a  theatre.  2.  "  What  I  here  aver  is  the  naked  fact.  Let  every  one 
account  for  it  as  he  sees  good.  My  horse  was  exceedingly  lame. 
And  my  head  ached  much.  I  thought,  cannot  God  heal  man  or 
beast,  by  means,  or  without  ?  Immediately  my  weariness  and  head- 
ach  ceased,  and  my  horse's  lameness  in  the  same  instant."  (p.  136.) 
It  was  so  :  and  I  believe  thousands  of  serious  Christians  have  found 
as  plain  answers  to  prayer  as  this.  3.  WiUiam  Kirkman's  case 
proves  only,  that  God  does  what  pleases  him  ;  not  that  I  make  my- 
self either  "  a  great  saint,  or  a  great  physician."  (p.  137.)  4.  "R. 
A.  was  freed  at  once,  without  any  human  means,  from  a  distemper 
naturally  incurable."  (p.  133.)  He  was  :  but  it  was  before  I  knew 
him.  So  what  is  that  to  me  1  5.  "  I  found  Mr.  Lunell  in  a  violent 
fever.  He  revived  the  moment  he  saw  me,  and  began  to  recover 
from  that  time.  Perhaps  for  this  also  was  I  sent."  (ibid.)  1  mean, 
perhaps  this  was  one  end  for  which  the  providence  of  God  brought 
nie  thither  at  that  time.  G.  "  In  the  evening,  I  called  ui)on  Ann 
Calcut.  She  had  been  speechless  for  some  time.  But  almost  as 
soon  as  we  began  to  pray,  God  restored  her  speech.  And  from  that 
hour  the  fever  left  her.  7.  I  visited  severjil,  ill  of  the  spotted  fever, 
which  had  been  extremely  mortal.     But  Gqd  had  said,  '  Hitherto 


7S  A   LETTER   TO   THE 

shalt  thou  come.'  I  believe  there  was  not  one  with  whom  we  were, 
but  he  recovered.  8.  Mr.  Meyrick  had  been  speechless  and  sense- 
less for  some  time.  A  few  of  us  joined  in  prayer.  Before  we  had 
done,  his  sense  and  his  speech  returned.  Others  may  account  for 
this  by  natural  causes.  I  believe  this  is  the  power  of  God." 
(p.  139.) 

But  what  does  all  this  prove  ?  Not  that  I  claim  any  gift  above 
other  men ;  but  only  that  I  believe  God  now  hears  and  answers 
prayer,  even  beyond  the  ordinary  course  of  nature.  Otherwise  the 
clerk  was  in  the  right,  who  (in  order  to  prevent  the  fanaticism  of  his 
rector)  told  him,  "  Sir,  you  should  not  pray  for  fair  weather  yet ; 
for  the  moon  does  not  change  till  Saturday." 

While  the  two  accounts,  (p.  143 — 146,)  which  are  next  recited, 
lay  before  me,  a  venerable  old  clergyman  calling  upon  me,  1  asked 
him,  '  Sir,  would  you  advise  me  to  publish  these  strange  relations,  or 
not]'  He  answered,  'Are  you  sure  of  the  facts  V  I  replied,  '  As 
sure  as  that  I  am  alive.'  '  Then,'  said  he,  '  publish  them  in  God's 
name,  and  be  not  caretul  about  the  event.' 

The  short  of  the  case  is  this.  Two  young  women  were  tor- 
mented of  the  Devil,  in  an  uncommon  manner.  Several  serious 
persons  desired  my  brother  and  me  to  pray  with  them.  We  (with 
many  others)  did,  and  they  were  delivered.  But  where,  mean  time, 
were  "  the  exorcisms  in  form,  according  to  the  Roman  fashion?"  I 
never  used  them.     I  never  saw  them.     I  know  nothing  about  them. 

*'  Such  were  the  blessings  which  Mr.  W.  distributed  among  his 
friends.  For  his  enemies  he  had  in  store,  the  judgmerds  of  heaven." 
(p.  144.)  Did  I  then  ever  distribute  or  profess  to  distribute  these? 
Do  I  claim  any  such  power  ?  This  is  the  present  question.  Let  us 
calmly  consider  the  eight  quotations  brought  to  prove  it. 

1.  '  1  preached  at  Darlaston,  late  a  den  of  lions.  But  the 
fiercest  of  them  God  has  called  away,  by  a  train  of  surprising 
strokes.'  (ibid.)  But  not  by  me.  1  was  not  there.  2.  '  I  preached 
at  R,  late  a  place  of  furious  riot  and  persecution  :  but  quiet  and 
calm,  since  the  bitter  rector  is  gone  to  give  an   account  of  himself 

to  God.     3.   Hence  we  rode  to   T n,  where  the  minister  was 

slowly  recovering  from  a  violent  fit  of  the  palsy,  with  which  he  was 
struck  immediately  after  he  had  been  preaching  a  virulent  sermon 

against  the  Methodists.     4.  The  case  of  Mr.  W n  was  dreadful 

indeed,  and  too  notorious  to  be  denied.  5.  One  of  the  chief  of 
those  who  came  to  make  the  disturbance  on  the  first  instant,  hanged 
himself  6.  I  was  quite  surprised  when  I  heard  Mr.  R.  preach  : 
that  soft,  smooth,  tuneful  voice,  which  he  so  often  employed  to  blas- 
pheme the  v/ork  of  God,  was  lost,  without  hope  of  recovery.  7. 
Mr.  C.  spoke  so  much  in  favour  of  the  rioters,  that  they  were  all 
discharged.  A  few  days  after,  walking  over  the  same  field,  he  drop- 
ped down,  and  spoke  no  more.'  p.  145 — 147. 

And  what  is  the  utmost  that  can  be  inferred  from  all  these  passa- 
ges 1  That  I  believe  these^  things  to  have  been  judgments.  What  if  I 
did  1  To  believe  things,  arc  judgments  is  one  thing ;  to  claim  a  power 


BISHOP  or  GLOUCBSTEK.  Vo 

of  indicting  judgments,  is  another.  If  indeed  I  believe  things  to  be 
judgments  which  are  not,  I  am  to  blame.  But  still  this  is  not 
•'  claiming  any  miraculous  gift." 

But  "  you  cite  one  who  forbid  your  speaking  to  some  dying  crimi- 
nals, to  answer  for  their  souls  at  the  judgment  seat  of  Christ."  (p. 
147.)  I  do  ;  but  be  this  right  or  wrong,  it  is  not  "  claiming  a  power 
to  inflict  judgments." 

"  Yes  it  is  ;  for  these  judgments  are  fulminated  with  the  air  of  one 
who  had  the  divine  vengeance  at  his  disposal."  (ibid.)  I  think  not : 
and  I  believe  all  impartial  men  will  be  of  the  same  mind. 

"  These  are  some  of  the  extraordinary  gifts  which  Mr.  W.  claims." 
(p.  149.)  I  claim  no  extraordinary  gift  at  all.  Nor  has  any  thing 
to  the  contrary  been  proved  yet,  so  much  as  in  a  single  instance. 

"  We  come  now  to  the  application  of  this  sovereign  test,  James 
iii.  17."  But  let  us  see  that  we  understand  it  first.  I  beg  leave  to 
consider  the  whole.  fVho  is  a  wise  and  knouing  man  among  you  ? 
Let  him  show  his  wisdom,  as  well  as  his  faith,  by  his  works  not  by 
words  only.  But  if  ye  have  bitter  zeal  and  strife  in  your  heart,  do  nol 
glory  and  lie  against  the  truth :  as  if  any  such  zeal,  any  thing  con- 
trary to  love,  could  consist  with  true  wisdom.  This  icisdom  de- 
scendeth  not  from  above,  but  is  earthly,  sensual,  devilish.  For  where 
hitter  zeal  and  strife  are,  there  is  confusion  and  every  evil  work.  Bui 
the  wisdom  which  is  from  above,  (which  every  one  that  hath  is  a  real 
Christian,  and  he  only,)  is  first  pure,  free  from  all  that  is  earthly,  sen- 
sual, devilish  ;  then  peaceable,  benign,  loving,  making  peace  ;  gentle, 
soft,  mild,  yielding,  not  morose,  or  sour  ;  easy  to  be  entreated,  to  be 
persuaded  or  convinced,  not  stubborn,  self-willed,  or  self-conceited : 
full  of  mercy,  of  tenderness  and  compassion  ;  and  good  fruits,  both 
in  the  heart  and  life.  Two  of  these  are  immediately  specified. 
without  partiality,  loving  and  doing  good  to  all,  without  respect  of 
persons,  and  without  hypocrisy,  sincere,  frank,  open. 

I  desire  to  be  tried  l3y  this  test,  I  try  myself  by  it  continually  : 
not  indeed  whether  I  am  a  prophet,  (for  it  has  nothing  to  do  with 
this,)  but  whether  I  am  a  Christian. 

I.  The  present  question  then  is,  (not  what  is  Mr.  Law,  or  what. 
are  the  Moravians,  but)  what  is  John  Wesley  1  And,  1 .  Is  he  pure  ov 
not?  "  Not  pure  :  for  he  separates  reason  from  grace."  (p.  156.) 
A  wonderful  proof !  But  I  deny  the  fact.  I  never  did  separate  rea- 
son from  grace.  "  Yes,  you  do.  For  your  own  words  are,  thc' 
points  we  chiefly  insisted  on  were  four.  1.  That  orthodoxy,  or  iighl 
opinion,  is  at  best  but  a  very  slender  part  of  religion  ;  if  it  can  be  al- 
lowed to  be  any  part  of  it  at  all."  p.  157. 

After  premising,  that  it  is  our  bounden  duty  to  labour  after  a  right 
judgment  in  all  things,  as  a  wrong  judgment  naturally  leads  to  wrong 
practice  :  I  say  again,  right  opinion  is  at  best  but  a  very  slender  part  o\ 
religion,  (which  properly  and  directly  consists  in  right  tempers,  word?, 
and  actions,)  and  frequently  it  is  no  part  of  religion.  For  it  may  be, 
where  there  is  no  religion  at  all :  in  men  of  the  most  abandonrf"! 
lives  :  yea  in  the  Devil  himself. 

Vol.  9.— H 


74  V  LETTER  TO  THE 

And  yet  this  does  not  prove,  that  I  "  separate  reason  from  grace/* 
that  I  "  discard  reason  from  the  service  of  religion."  I  do  continu- 
ally "  employ  it  to  distinguish  between  right  and  wrong  opinions." 
I  never  affirmed,  "  this  distinction  to  be  of  little  consequence,"  ov 
denied,  "the  gospel  to  be  a  reasonable  service.''^  p.  158. 

But  "  the  apostle  Paul  considered  right  opinion,  as  a  full  third  part, 
at  least,  of  religion.  For  he  says,  'the  fruit  of  the  Spirit  is  in  all 
goodness,  and  righteousness,  and  truth.'  By  goodness  is  meant  the 
conduct  of  particulars  to  the  whole,  and  consists  in  habits  and  social 
virtue,  and  this  refers  to  Christian  practice.  By 'righteousness  is 
meant  the  conduct  of  the  whole,  to  particulars,  and  consists  in 
the  gentle  use  of  church  authority.  And  this  refers  to  Christian 
discipline.  By  truth  is  meant  the  conduct  of  the  whole,  and  of  par- 
ticulars to  one  another,  and  consist  in  orthodoxy  or  right  opinion;  and 
this  refers  to  Christian  doctrine.''^  p.  159. 

My  objections  to  this  account  are,  1.  It  contradicts  St.  Paul.  2, 
It  contradicts  itself 

First,  It  contradicts  St.  Paul.  It  fixes  a  meaning  upon  his  words, 
foreign  both  to  the  text  and  context.  The  plain  sense  of  the  text 
taken  in  connexion  with  the  context,  is  no  other  than  this.  The 
fruit  of  the  Spirit,  (Eph.  v.  9.;  (rather  of  the  light,  which  Bengelius 
proves  to  be  the  true  reading,)  opposite  to  the  unfruitful  icorks  of 
darkness,  mentioned  (v.  11.  ;)  it  consists  in  all  goodness,  kindness, 
tender-heartedness,  (chap.  iv.  32  ;)  opposite  to  bitterness,  lorath,  anger, 
clamour,  evil-speaking,  (v.  31  ;)  in  all  righteousness,  rendering  unto 
all  their  dues ;  o])posite  to  stealing,  (v.  28  ;)  and  in  all  truth,  veracity, 
iincerity,  opposite  to  lying,  (v.  25.) 

Secondly,  That  interpretation  contradicts  itself;  and  that  in  every 
article.  For,  1 .  If  by  goodness  be  meant  the  conduct  of  "  particulars 
to  the  whole,"  then  it  does  not  consist  in  habits  of  "  social  virtue.'" 
[*'or  "social  virtue"  regulates  the  conduct  of  particulars,  not  so  pro- 
perly to  the  whole  as  to  each  other.  2.  If  by  righteousness  be  meant 
the  conduct  of  "  the  whole  to  particulars,"  then  it  cannot  consist  in 
the  gentleness  of  church-authority;  unless  church  governors  are  the 
whole  church,  or  the  parliament  the  whole  nation.  3.  If  by  truth 
be  meant,  the  conduct  of  the  whole,  and  of  particulars  to  one  another, 
then  it  cannot  possibly  consist  in  "  orthodoxy  or  right  opinion." 
For  opinion,  right  or  wrong,  is  not  conduct.  They  ditJer  toto  genere. 
If  then  it  be  orthodoxy,  it  is  not  "  the  conduct  of  the  governors  and 
^•overned  towards  each  other.  If  it  be  their  conduct  toward  each 
other,  it  is  not  orthodoonj." 

Although,  therefore,  it  be  allowed,  that  right  opinions  are  a  great 
help,  and  wrong  opinions  a  great  hinderance  to  religion,  yet  till 
stronger  proof  be  brought  against  it,  that  proposition  remains  un- 
shaken, "  right  opinions  are  a  slender  part  of  religion,  if  any  part  of 
it  at  all."  p.  160. 

As  to  the  affair  of  the  Abbe  Paris,  whoever  will  read  over,  with 
calmness  and  impartiality,  but  one  volume  of  Monsieur  Montgeron. 
M'ill  then  be  a  competent  judge.     Mean  time  I  would  just  observe. 


BISHOP    or   GLOUCESTER.  "5 

that  if  these  miracles  were  real,  they  would  strike  at  the  root  of  the 
whole  papal  authority ;  as  having  been  wrought  in  direct  opposition 
to  the  famous  Bull  Unigenitus.  p.  161. 

Yet  I  do  not  say,  "  Errors  in  faith  have  little  to  do  with  religion;" 
or  that  they  '•  are  no  let  or  impediment  to  the  Holy  Spirit."  (p.  162.) 
But  still  it  is  true,  that  "  God  (generally  speaking)  begins  his  work 
at  the  heart."  (ibid.)  Men  usually  feel  desires  to  please  God, 
before  they  know  how  to  please  him.  Their  heart  says,  "What 
must  I  do  to  be  saved  ]"  before  they  understand  the  way  of  salvation. 

But  see  "  the  character  he  gives  his  own  saints!"  'The  more  I 
converse  with  this  people  the  more  I  am  amazed.  That  God  hath 
wrought  a  great  work  is  manifest,  (by  saving  many  sinners  from  their 
sins.)  And  yet  the  "main  of  them  are  not  able  to  give  a  rational 
account  of  the  plainest  principles  of  religion.'  They  were  not  able 
then,  as  there  had  not  been  time  to  instruct  them.  But  the  case  is 
far  different  now. 

Again,  did  1  "  give  this  character"  even  then,  of  the  people  called 
Methodists,  m  general?  No,  but  of  the  people  oi  2i  particular  iown  in 
Ireland,  where  nine  in  ten  of  the  inhabitants  are  Romanists. 

"  Nor  is  the  observation  conlined  to  the  people.  He  had  made  a 
proselyte  of  Mr.  D.  vicar  of  B.  And  to  show  he  was  no  discredit  to 
his  master,  he  gives  him  this  character;  'He  seemed  to  stagger  at 
nothing,  though  as  yet  his  understanding  is  not  opened.'"  p.  162. 

Mr.  D.  was  never  a  proselyte  of  mine;  nor  did  I  ever  see  him 
before  or  since.  I  endeavoured  to  show  him,  that  v/e  '  are  justified 
by  faith.'  And  he  did  not  object;  though  neither  did  he  under- 
stand. 

"  But  in  the  first  propagation  of  religion,  God  began  with  the  un- 
derstanding, and  rational  conviction  won  the  heart."  (p.  163.)  Fre- 
quently, but  not  always.  The  jailer's  heart  was  touched  first,  then 
he  understood  what  he  '  must  do  to  be  saved.'  In  this  respect  then 
there  is  nothing  new  in  the  present  work  of  God.  So  the  Uvely  story 
from  Moliere  is  just  nothing  to  the  purpose. 

In  drawing  the  parallel  between  the  work  God  has  wrought  in 
England  and  in  America,  I  do  not  so  much  as  "  insinuate,  the  under- 
standing has  nothing  to  do  in  the  work."  (p.  165.)  Whoever  is  en- 
gaged therein  will  find  full  employment  for  all  the  understanding 
which  God  has  given  him. 

"  On  the  whole,  therefore,  we  conclude,  that  wisdom  which  di- 
vests the  Christian  faith  of  its  truth,  and  the  test  of  it,  reason — and 
resolves  all  religion  into  spiritual  mysticism  and  ecstatic  raptures, 
cannot  be  the  wisdom  from  above,  whose  characteristic  is  purity." 
p.  166. 

Perhaps  so,  but  I  do  not  "divest  faith,  either  of  truth  or  reason; 
much  less  do  I  resolve  all  into  spiritual  mysticism  and  ecstatic  rap- 
tures." Therefore,  suppose  purity  hers  meant  sound  doctrine,  (which 
it  no  more  means  than  it  does  a  sound  constitution,)  still  it  touches 
not  me,  who  for  any  thing  that  has  yet  been  said,  may  teach  the  soundr- 
esl  doctrine  in  the  world. 


76  A   LETTER    TO   THfi 

2.  "  Our  next  business  is  to  apply  the  other  marks  to  these  pre  • 
tending  sectaries.  The  first  of  these,  purity,  res.  ects  the  nature  of 
'  the  wisdom  from  above,'  or  in  other  words,  the  doctrine  taught.'' 
(p.  167.)  Not  in  the  least.  It  has  no  more  to  do  with  doctrine, 
than  the  whole  text  has  with  prophets.  "All  the  rest  concern  the 
manner  of  teaching."  Neither  can  this  be  allowed.  They  no  far- 
ther concern  either  teaching  or  teachers,  than  they  concern  all  man- 
kind. 

But  to  proceed.  "  Methodism  signifies  only  the  manner  of" 
preaching  ;  not  either  an  old  or  a  new  religion  ;  it  is  the  manner  in 
which  Mr.  W.  and  his  followers  attempt  to  propagate  the  plain  old 
religion."  (p.  168.)  And  is  not  this  sound  doctrine  ?  Is  this  spirit- 
ual mysticism  and  ecstatic  raptures  1 

"  Of  all  men,  Mr.  W.  should  best  know  the  meaning  of  the  term; 
since  it  was  not  a  nick-name  imposed  on  the  sect  by  its  enemies,  but 
an  appellation  of  honour  bestowed  upon  it  by  themselves."  In  an- 
swer to  this,  I  need  only  transcribe  what  was  published  twenty  years 
ago.* 

'  Since  the  name  first  came  abroad  into  the  world,  many  have  been 
at  a  loss  to  knov/  what  a  Methodist  is  :  what  are  the  principles  and 
practice  of  those  who  are  commonly  called  by  that  name ;  and  what 
are  the  distinguishing  marks  of  the  sect,  '  which  is  every  where 
spoken  against.' 

^  And  it  being  generally  believed  that  I  was  able  to  give  the  clear- 
est account  of  these  things,  (as  having  been  one  of  the  first  to  whom 
the  name  was  given,  and  the  person  by  whom  the  rest  were  supposed 
to  be  directed,)  I  have  been  called  upon  in  all  manner  of  ways, 
and  with  the  utmost  earnestness  so  to  do.  I  yield  at  last  to  the  con- 
tinual importunity,  both  of  friends  and  enemies ;  and  do  now  give 
the  clearest  account  I  can,  in  the  presence  of  the  Lord,  the  Judge 
of  heaven  and  earth,  of  the  principles  and  practice  whereby  those 
who  are  called  Methodists  are  distinguished  from  other  men. 

'I  say,  those  who  are  called  Methodists  ;  for  let  it  be  well  observed, 
that  this  is  not  a  name  which  they  take  upon  themselves,  but  one 
fixed  on  them  by  way  of  reproach,  without  their  approbation  or  con- 
sent. It  was  first  given  to  tnree  or  four  young  men  at  Oxford,  by  a 
student  of  Christ's  Church  ;  either  in  allusion  to  the  ancient  sect  of 
physicians  so  called,  (from  their  teaching,  that  almost  all  diseases 
might  be  cured  by  a  specific  method  of  diet  and  exercise)  or  from 
their  observing  a  more  regular  method  of  study  and  behaviour  than 
was  usual  with  those  of  their  age  and  station.' 

I  need  only  add,  that  this  nick-name  was  imposed  upon  us  before 
this  manner  of  preaching  had  a  being.  Yea,  at  a  time  when  T  thought 
it  as  lawful  to  cut  a  throat  as  to  preach  out  of  a  church. 

"  Why  then  wii!  Mr.  W.  so  grossly  misrepresent  his  adversaries, 
as  to  say,  that  when  they  speak  against  Methodism,  they  speak 
against  the  plain,  old  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England  1"  (ibid.) 

*  Preface  to  The  Character  of  a  Methodist. 


BISHOP  OP  GLftUCESTEE.  77 

This  is  no  misrepresentation.  Many  of  our  adversaries,  all  over  the 
kingdom,  speak  against  us,  eo  nomine^  for  preaching  these  doctrines, 
justification  by  faith  in  particular. 

However,  "  a  fanatic  mS,nner  of  preaching,  though  it  were  the 
doctrine  of  an  apostle,  may  do  more  harm  to  society  at  least,  than 
reviving  old  heresies,  or  inventing  new.  It  tends  to  bewilder  the 
imaginations  of  some,  to  inflame  the  passions  of  others,  and  to  spread 
disorder  and  confusion  through  the  whole  community."  (p.  169.) 
I  would  gladly  have  the  term  defined.  What  is  "  a  fanatic  manner 
of  preaching  ?"  Is  it  field-preaching  1  But  this  has  no  such  etfect, 
even  among  the  wildest  of  men.  This  has  not  "  bewildered  the 
imagination,"  even  of  the  Kingswood  colliers,  or  "  inflamed  their 
passions."  It  has  not  spread  disorder  or  confusion  among  them, 
but  just  the  contrary.     From  the  time  it  was  heard  in  that  chaos, 

Confusion  heard  the  voice,  and  wild  iipi-oar, 
Stood  riil'd,  and  order  from  disorder  sprung. 

"  But  St.  James,  who  delivers  the  test  for  the  trial  of  these  men's 
pretensions," — (the  same  mistake  still)  "  unquestionably  thought  a 
fanatic  spirit  did  more  mischief  in  the  mode  of  teaching  than  in 
the  matter  taught :  since  of  six  marks,  one  only  concerns  doctrine, 
all  the  rest  the  manners  of  the  teacher."  (p.  170.)  Nay,  all  six 
concern  doctrine  as  much  as  one.  The  truth  is,  they  have  nothing 
to  do  either  with  doctrine  or  manner. 

"  From  St.  Paul's  words,  '  Be  instant,  in  season,  out  of  season,' 
he  infers  more  than  they  will  bear ;  and  misapplies  them  into  the 
bargain."  (p.  171.)  When  and  where?  I  do  not  remember  ap- 
plying them  at  all. 

"  When  seasonable  times  are  appointed  for  holy  oflices,  to  fly  to 
unseasonable,  is  factious."  (p.  172.)  But  it  is  not  clear,  that  five 
in  the  morning  and  seven  in  the  evening  (our  usual  times)  are  un- 
seasonable. 

We  come  now  directly  to  the  second  article.  "  '  The  wisdom 
from  above  is  peaceable.'  But  the  propagation  of  Methodism  has 
occasioned  many  and  great  violations  of  peace,  (p.  173.)  In  order 
to  know  where  the  blame  hereof  lies,  let  us  inquire  into  the  temper 
which  makes  for  peace.  For  Ave  may  be  assured  the  fault  lies  not 
there,  where  such  a  temper  is  found."  Thus  far  we  are  quite 
agreed.  "  Now  the  temper  which  makes  for  peace  is  prudence." 
This  is  one  of  the  tempers  which  make  for  peace ;  others  are  kind- 
ness, meekness,  patience.  "  This  our  Lord  recommended  by  his 
own  example,  (p.  174 — 177.)  But  this  Mr.  W.  calls  '  the  mystery 
of  iniquity,  and  the  offspring  of  hell.'"  (p.  178.)  No,  not  this: 
not  the  prudence  which  our  Lord  recommends.  I  call  that  so,  and 
that  only,  which  the  world,  the  men  who  know  not  God,  style 
Christian  prudence.  By  this  1  mean  subtilty,  craft,  dissimulation  ; 
study  to  please  man  rather  than  God  ;  the  art  of  trimming  between 
God  and  the  world,  of  serving  God  and  mammon.  Will  any  serious 
man  defend  this  ]  And  this  only  do  I  condemn. 

H2 


'78  A    LETTER    TO    THE 

"  But  you  sa)%  '  good  sort  of  men,  as  they  are  called,  are  tlif; 
bane  of  all  religion.' "  (p.  179,  180.)  And  I  think  so.  By  this 
good  sort  of  men,  I  mean,  persons  who  have  a  liking  to,  but  no 
sense  of  religion:  no  real  fear  or  love  of  God;  no  truly  Christian 
tempers.  "  These  steal  away  the  little  zeal  he  has,  that  is,  per- 
suade him  to  be  peaceable."  No;  persuade  him  to  be  like  them- 
selves; without  love  either  to  Cod  or  man. 

"  Again,  speaking  of  one,  he  says,  '  Indulging  himself  in  harm- 
less company,'  (vulgarly  so  called,)  '  He  first  made  shipwreck  of  his 
zeal,  then  of  his  faith.'  In  this  I  think  he  is  right.  The  zeal  and 
faith  of  a  fanatic  are  such  exact  tallies,,  that  neither  can  exist  alone. 
They  came  into  the  world  together,  to  disturb  society  and  dishonour 
religion." 

By  zeal  I  mean  the  flame  of  love,  or  fervent  love  to  God  and 
man  ;  by  faith  the  substance  or  confidence  of  things  hoped  for,  the 
evidence  of  things  not  seen.  Is  this  the  zeal  and  faith  of  a  fanatic  ? 
Then  St.  Paul  was  the  greatest  fanatic  on  earth.  Did  these  come 
into  the  world  to  disturb  society  and  dishonour  religion^ 

"  On  the  whole,  we  find  Mr.  W.  by  his  own  confession,  entirely 
destitute  of  prudence,  (p.  181.)  Therefore  it  must  be  ascribed  to 
the  want  of  this,  if  his  preaching  be  attended  with  tumult  and  dis- 
order." By  "  his  own  confession '.'"  Surely  no.  T' is  I  confess, 
and  this  only :  what  is  falsely  called  prudence,  I  abhor :  but  true 
prudence  I  love  and  admire. 

However,  "you  set  at  naught  the  discipline  of  the  church,  by 
invading  the  province  of  the  parochial  minister."  (p.  182.j  Nay,  if 
ever  I  preach  at  all,  it  must  be  in  the  province  of  some  parochial 
minister :  "  by  assembling  in  undue  places,  and  at  unfit  times."  I 
know  of  no  times  unfit  for  those  who  assemble.  And  I  believe 
Hanham  Mount  and  Rosegreen  were  the  most  proper  places  under 
lieaven  for  preaching  to  the  colliers  in  Kingswood  :  "  by  scurrilous 
invectives  against  the  governors  and  pastors  of  the  national  church." 
This  is  an  entire  mistake.  I  dare  not  make  any  "  scurrilous  invec- 
tives" against  any  man.  "  Insolencies  of  this  nature  provoke  warm 
men  to  tumult."  But  these  "  insolencies"  do  not  exist.  So  that 
whatever  tumult  either  warm  or  cold  men  raise,  I  am  not  chargeable^ 
therewith. 

"  To  know  the  true  character  of  Methodism."  The  present  point 
is,  to  know  the  true  character  of  John  Wesley.  Now  in  order  ta 
know  this,  we  need  not  inquire  what  others  were,  before  he  was 
t)orn.  All,  therefore,  that  follows,  (p.  184 — 186,)  of  old  Precisians, 
Puritans,  and  Independents,  may  stand  just  as  it  is. 

But  "Mr.  W.  wanted  to  be  persecuted.''  (p.  187.)  As  this  is- 
averred  over  and  over,  I  will  explain  myself  upon  it,  once  for  all 
T  never  desired,  ar  wanted  to  be  persecuted. 

Lives  there  who  loves  his  pain  ? 

i  love,  and  desire  to  '  live  peaceably  with  all  men.'     "  But  persecu- 
tion would  not  come  at  his  call."     However,  it  came  uncalled  :  anc5 


BISHOP   OP   GL0UCESTEI3.  79 

more  than  once  or  twice,  it  was  not  "  mock  persecution."  It  wa^ 
not  only  the  huzzas  of  the  mob  :  showers  of  stones  are  something 
more  than  huzzas.  And  whosoever  saw  the  mob  either  at  Walsal  or 
Cork,  (to  instance  in  no  more,)  saw  that  they  were  not  "  in  jest," 
but  in  great  earnest,  eagerly  athirst,  not  for  sport,  (as  you  suppose) 
but  for  blood. 

But  though  I  do  not  desire  persecution,  I  expect  it.  I  must,  if  S 
believe  St.  Paul ;  '  all  that  will  live  godly  in  Christ  Jesus,  shall 
suffer  persecution,'  2  Tim.  iii.  12:  either  sooner  or  later,  more  or 
less,  according  to  the  wise  providence  of  God.  But  I  believe,  '  all' 
these  '  things  work  together  for  good,  to  them  that  love  God.'  And 
from  a  conviction  of  this,  they  may  even  '  rejoice,'  when  they  are 
*  persecuted  for  righteousness'  sake.' 

Yet  as  I  seldom  "  complain  of  ill  treatment,"  so  I  am  never 
"dissatisfied  with  good."  (p.  188.)  But  I  often  wonder  at  it.  And 
I  once  expressed  my  wonder,  nearly  in  the  words  of  the  old 
Athenian,  "  What  have  we  done,  that  the  world  should  be  so  civil 
to  us  ?' 

You  conclude  the  head,  "  As  he  who  persecutes,  is  but  the  tool 
of  him  that  invites  persecution,"  (I  know  not  who  does,)  "the 
crime  finally  comes  home  to  him  who  sets  the  rioter  at  work."  (p. 
191.)  And  is  this  all  the  proof,  that  I  am  not  peaceable]  Then  let 
all  men  judge,  if  the  charge  be  made  good. 

3.  "  The  next  mark  of  the  celestial  wisdom  is,  it  is  *  gentle  and 
easy  to  be  entreated;'  compliant  and  even  obsequious  to  all  men." 
And  how  does  it  appear,  that  I  am  wanting  in  this  !  Why,  he  is  "  a 
severe  condemner  of  his  fellow-citizens,  and  a  severe  exactor  of 
conformity  to  his  own  observances."  Now  the  proof.  1.  "  He 
tells  us  this  in  the  very  appellation  he  assumes.''  (p.  192.)  Nay, 
I  never  assumed  it  at  all.  2.  But  "  you  say,  useless  conversation 
is  an  abomination  to  the  Lord.  And  what  is  this,  but  to  withstand 
St.  Paul  to  the  face  .'"'  Whv,  did  St.  Paul  join  in,  or  commend  use- 
less conversation]  I  rather  think,  he  reproves  it.  He  condemns  as 
FuTT^oi  Myoi,  putrid,  stinking  conversation,  all  that  is  not  good,  all  that 
rs  not  '  to  the  use  of  editying,'  and  meet  to  '  minister  grace  to  the 
hearers.'  Eph.  iv.  29.  3.  "  Mr.  W.  '  resolved,  never  to  laugh, 
nor  to  speak  a  tittle  of  worldly  things, — though  others  may,  nay 
must.'  "  Pray  add  that,  which  was  the  reason  of  my  so  resolving^, 
namely,  that  I  expected  to  die  in  a  few  days.  If  I  expected  it  now, 
probably,  I  should  resume  the  resolution.  But  be  it  as  it  may,  this 
proves  nothing  against  my  being  both  gentle  and  easy  to  be  entreated. 
4.  "  He  says  Mr.  G.  was  a  clumsy,  overgrown,  hardfaced  man." 
(p.  194.)  So  he  was.  And  this  was  the  best  of  him.  I  spare  him 
much  in  saying  no  more.  But  he  is  gone.  Let  his  ashes  rest.  5. 
"  I  heard  a  most  miserable  sermon,  full  of  dull,  senseless,  improbable 
lies."  It  was  so,  from  the  beginning  to  the  end.  I  have  seldom 
heard  the  like.  6.  "  The  persecution  at  St.  Ives"  (which  ended 
before  I  came  ;  what  I  saw  (  do  not  term  persecution)  "  was  owing 
to  the  indefatigable  labours  of  Mr.  H.  and  Mr.  S.,  gentlemen  worthy 


^0  A    LETTER   TO    THE 

to  be-  had  in  everlasting  remembrance.  Here  he  tells  us,  it  is  his^ 
purpose  to  gibbet  up  the  names  of  his  two  great  persecutors  to  ever- 
lasting infamy."  (p.  195.)  These  gentlemen  had  occasioned  several 
innocent  people,  to  be  turned  out  of  their  livelihood  ;  and  others  to 
be  outraged  in  the  most  shocking  manner,  and  beat  only  not  to 
death.  My  purpose  is,  by  setting  down  their  names,  to  make  others 
afraid  so  to  offend.  Yet  i  say  still,  "  God  forbid  that  I  should  rail, 
either  at  a  Turk,  infidel,  or  heretic."  But  I  will  bring  to  light  the 
actions  of  such  Christians,  to  be  a  warning  to  others.  And  all  this 
I  judge  to  be  perfectly  consistent  with  "the  spirit  of  wee/cness."  p, 
196. 

4.  "  The  fourth  mark  is.  Full  of  mercy  and  good  fruits.     Let  us 
inquire  into  the  mercy  and  good  fruits  of  Mr.  W."  (p.  198.) 

1 .  And,  first,  "  He  has  no  mercy  on  his  opposers.  They  pass 
with  him  under  no  other  title,  than  that  of  the  Devil's  servants,  and 
the  Devil's  children."  (ibid.)  This  is  far  from  true.  Many  have 
opposed,  and  do  oppose  me  still,  whom  I  believe  to  be  the  children 
and  servants  of  God.  "  We  have  seen  him  despatching  the  princi- 
pal of  these  children  of  the  Devil,  without  mercy,  to  their  father." 
(p.  199.)  No,  not  one.  This  has  been  affirmed  over  and  over,  but 
never  proved  yet.  I  "  fling  about  no  exterminating  judgments  of 
God;"  I  "  call  down  no  tire  from  heaven."  "  But  it  would  be  for 
the  credit  of  those  new  saints,  to  distinguish  between  rage  and  zeal." 
That  is  easily  done.  Rage  is  furious  fire  from  hell ;  zeal  is  loving 
fire  from  heaven.  2.  "  If  what  has  been  said  above  does  not  suffice, 
turn  again  to  Mr.  W.'s  Journals.  Mr.  S.  while  he  was  speaking  to 
the  society  against  my  brother  and  me,  was  struck  raving  mad." 
(p.  200.)  He  was  so,  before  a  hundred  witnesses;  though  I  was 
Ihe  last  to  believe  it.  "  But  it  seems,  God  is  at  length  entreated  for 
him,  and  has  restored  him  to  a  sound  mind."  And  is  my  relating 
this/ac/,  an  instance  of  "  dooming  men  to  perdition  ?"  3.  "  John 
Haydon  cried  aloud,  Let  the  woi'ld  see  the  judgment  of  God."  (p. 
201.)  He  did.  But  let  John  Haydon  look  to  that.  !t  was  he  said 
so,  not  I.  4.  *'  I  was  informed  of  an  awful  providence.  A  poor 
wretch,  who  was  here  the  last  week,  cursing,  and  blaspheming,  and 
labouring  with  all  his  might  to  hinder  the  word  of  God,  had  after- 
wards boasted,  he  would  come  again  on  Sunday,  and  no  man  should 
stop  his  mouth  then.  But  on  Friday  God  laid  his  hand  upon  him, 
and  on  Sunday  he  was  buried."  (p.  202.)  And  was  not  this  an 
awful  providence  1  But  yet  I  do  not  "  doom  even  him  to  perdition." 
o.  "  I  saw  a  poor  man,  once  joined  with  us,  who  wanted  nothing  in 
this  world.  A  day  or  two  before  he  hanged  himself,  but  was  cut 
down  before  he  was  dead.  He  has  been  crying  out  ever  since, 
"  God  had  left  him,  because  he  had  left  the  children  of  God." 
This  was  his  assertion,  not  mine.  I  neither  affirm  nor  deny  it. 
6.  The  true  account  of  Lucy  Godshall  is  this.  "  I  buried  the  body 
of  Lucy  Godshall.  After  pressing  tov/ards  the  mark  for  more  than 
two  years,  since  she  had  known  the  pardoning  love  of  God  ;  she  was 
for  some  time  weary  and  faint  in  her  mind,  till  I  put  her  out  of  the 


BlSftOP   OP    GLOUCESTEK,  81 

t)aiids.  God  blessed  this  greatly  to  her  soul,  so  that,  in  a  short  time, 
she  was  admitted  again.  Soon  after,  being  at  home,  she  felt  the  love 
of  God  in  an  unusual  manner  poured  into  her  heart.  She  fell  down 
upon  her  knees,  and  delivered  up  her  soul  and  body  into  the  hands 
of  God.  In  the  instant  the  use  of  all  her  limbs  was  taken  away, 
and  she  was  in  a  burning  fever.  For  three  days  she  mightily  praised 
God,  and  rejoiced  in  him  all  the  day  long.  She  then  cried  out, 
Now  Satan  hath  desired  to  have  me,  that  he  may  sift  me  as  wheat. 
Immediately  darkness  and  heaviness  fell  upon  her,  which  continued 
till  Saturday  the  fourth  instant.  On  Sunday  the  light  shone  again 
upon  her  heart.  About  ten  in  the  evening,  one  said  to  her,  'Jesus 
is  ready  to  receive  your  soul.'  She  said.  Amen  !  Amen  !  closed  her 
eyes,  and  died.'  Is  this  brought  as  a  proof  of  my  inexorableness  ! 
Or  of  my  "  dooming  men  to  perdition  "?" 

7.  "  I  found  Nicholas  Palmer  in  great  weakness  of  body,  and  hea- 
viness of  spirit.  We  wrestled  with  God  in  his  behalf;  and  our  la- 
bour was  not  in  vain.  His  soul  was  comforted ;  and  a  few  hours 
after  he  quietly  fell  asleep."  A  strange  proof  this  hkewise,  either  of 
inexorableness,  or  of  "  dooming  men  to  perdition  !"  Therefore  this 
charge,  too,  stands  totally  unsupported.  Here  is  no  proof  of  my 
nnmercifulness  yet. 

"  Good  fruits  come  next  to  be  considered,  which  Mr.  Wesley's! 
idea  of  true  religion  does  not  promise.  He  saith,"  (I  will  repeat 
the  words  a  little  at  large,  that  their  true  sense  may  more  clearly 
appear  :)  "  in  explaining  those  words,  the  kingdom  oj  God,  or  true 
religion,  is  not  meats  and  drinks,  I  was  led  to  show,  that  religion  does 
not  properly  consist  in  harmlessness,  using  the  means  of  grace,  and 
doing  good,  that  is,  helping  our  neighbours,  chiefly  by  giving  alms  ; 
but  that  a  man  might  both  be  harmless,  use  the  means  of  grace,  and 
do  much  good,  and  yet  have  no  true  religion  at  all."  (p.  203.)  He 
may  so.  Yet  whoever  has  true  religion,  must  be  '  zealous  of  good 
works.'  And  zeal  for  all  good  works,  is,  according  to  my  idea,  an 
essential  ingredient  of  true  religion. 

"  Spiritual  cures  are  all  the  good  fruits  he  pretends  to,"  (p.  204, 
205.)  Not  quite  all,  says  William  Kirkman,  with  some  others.  "  A 
few  of  his  spiritual  cures  we  will  set  in  a  fair  light.  The  first  time  I 
preached  at  Swalwell,"  (chiefly  to  colliers  and  workers  in  the  iron 
work,)  "  none  seemed  to  be  much  convinced,  only  stunned  :"  I 
mean  amazed  at  what  they  heard,  though  they  were  the  first  princi- 
ples of  religion.  "  But  he  brings  them  to  their  senses  with  a  ven- 
geance." No,  not  them.  These  were  different  persons.  Are  they 
lumped  together,  in  order  to  set  things  in  a. fair  light?  The  whole 
paragraph  runs  thus.  '  I  carefully  examined  those  who  had  lately 
cried  out  in  the  congregation.  Some  of  these,  I  found,  could  give 
no  account  at  all,  how  or  wherefore  they  had  done  so :  only  that  of 
a  sudden,  they  dropped  down,  they  knew  not  how :  and  what  they 
afterward  said  or  did,  they  knew  not.  Others  could  just  remember, 
they  were  in  fear,  but  could  not  tell  what  they  were  in  fear  ef. 
^veral  said  they  were  afraid  of  the  Devil :  and  this  was  all  they 


92  A   LETTER   TO  THE 

knew.  But  a  few  gave  a  more  intelligible  account  of  the  piercing 
sense  they  then  had  of  their  sins,  both  inward  and  outward,  which 
were  set  in  array  against  them,  round  about :  of  the  dread  they 
were  in  of  the  wrath  of  God,  and  the  punishment  they  had  deserved, 
into  which  they  seemed  to  be  just  falling,  without  any  way  to  escape. 
One  of  them  told  me,  "  1  was  as  if  I  was  just  falling  down  from  the 
highest  place  I  had  ever  seen.  I  thought  the  Devil  was  pushing  me 
off,  and  that  God  had  forsaken  me."  Another  said,  "  i  felt  the  very 
fire  of  hell  already  kindled  in  my  breast  :  and  all  my  body  was  in  as 
much  pain,  as  if  I  had  been  in  a  burning  fiery  furnace."  What  wis- 
dom is  this,  which  rebuketh  these,  that  they  should  hold  their  peace  ? 
Nay,  let  such  an  one  cry  after  Jesus  oj  J^azareth,  till  he  saith,  Thy 
faith  hath  made  thee  ivhole.^ 

Now  follow  the  proofs  of  my  driving  men  mad.  1  "  Another  of 
Dr.  Monro's  patients  came  to  ask  my  advice.  I  found  no  reason  to 
believe  she  had  been  any  otherwise  mad,  than  every  one  is,  that  is 
deeply  convinced  of  sin."  (p.  208.)  Let  this  prove  all  that  it  can 
prove.  2.  "  A  middle  aged  woman  was  really  distracted  :"  Yes. 
before  I  ever  saw  her,  or  she  me.  3.  "  I  could  not  but  be  under 
some  concern  with  regard  to  one  or  two  persons,  who  were  tor- 
mented in  an  unaccountable  manner,  and  seemed  to  be  indeed  luna- 
tic, as  well  as  sore  v«ixed."  True  ;  for  a  time.  But  the  deliver- 
ance of  one  of  them  is  related  in  the  very  next  paragraph.  4.  "  Two 
or  three  are  gone  quite  distracted :  that  is,  they  mourn  and  refuse 
to  be  comforted  till  they  have  redemption."  (p.  209.)  5.  "  I  desired 
one  to  visit  Mrs.  G.  in  Bedlam,  put  in  by  her  husband,  as  a  mad 
woman."  But  she  never  was  mad  in  any  degree,  as  he  himself  af- 
terwards acknowledged.  6.  "  One  was  so  deeply  convinced  of 
her  ungodliness,  that  she  cried  out  day  and  night.  Lord,  save,  or  I 
perish  !  All  the  neighbours  agreed  she  was  stark  mad."  But  1  did 
not  make  her  so.  For  this  was  before  she  ever  saw  my  face.  Now 
let  any  one  judge,  whether  here  is  yet  a  single  proof,  that  I  drive 
men  mad. 

"  The  time  when  this  spiritual  madness  was  at  its  height,  he  calls 
a  glorious  time."  (p.  210.)  I  call  that  a  glorious  time'  when  many 
notorious  sinners  are  converted  to  God  ;  (whether  with  any  outward 
symptoms  or  none  ;  for  those  are  no  way  essential :)  and  when  many 
are  in  the  triumph  of  faith,  greatly  rejoicing  in  God  their  Saviour. 

"  But  though  Mr.  Wesley  does  so  well  in  turning  fools  into  mad- 
men, yet  his  craftsmaster  is  certainly  one  Mr.  Wheatle}^,  of  whom  he 
gives  this  extraordinary  account. 

"A  poor  woman  (on  Wed.  17th  Sept.  1740)  said,  it  was  four 
years  (namely.  In  Sept.  1736,  above  a  year  before  I  left  Georgia) 
since  her  son,  by  hearing  a  sermon  of  Mr.  Wheatley's,  fell  into  great 
uneasiness.  She  thought  he  was  ill,  and  would  have  sent  for  a  phy- 
sician. But  he  said,  "  No,  no  ;  send  for  Mr.  Wheatley."  He  was 
sent  for,  and  came  ;  and  after  asking  a  few  questions,  told  her,  "The 
boy  is  mad.  Get  a  coach,  and  carry  him  to  Dr.  M  unro.  Use  my 
same.     I  have  sent  several  such  to  him.     Who  this  Mr.  Wheatley 


BISHOP   OP   GLOUCESTER.  83 

•Is,  I  know  not."  (p.  211.)  He  was  lecturer  at  Spitalfields  church. 
The  event  was,  after  the  apothecary  had  half  murdered  him,  he  was 
discharged,  and  the  lad  soon  recovered  his  strength.  His  senses  he 
never  had  lost.  The  supposhig  this,  was  a  blunder  from  the  begin- 
ning. 

"  These  are  the  exploits  which  Mr.  W.  calls  blessings  from  God.'^ 
(p.  212.)  (Certainly  I  do,  both  repentance  And  faith.)  "And 
which  therefore  we  may  call  the  good  fruits  of  his  ministry."  (May 
God  increase  them  a  hundred  fold !)  "  What  the  apostle  calls  good 
fruits,  namely,  doing  much  good,  Mr.  W,  tells  us,  belongs  not  to 
true  religion."  I  never  told  any  man  so  yet.  I  tell  all  men  just  the 
contrary. 

I  may  then  safely  leave  all  mankind  to  judge,  whether  a  single  ar- 
ticle of  the  charge  against  me  has  yet  been  made  good.  So  much 
for  the  first  charge,  that  1  am  a  madman.  Now  for  the  second,  that 
I  am  a  knave. 

5.  The  proof  is  short:  "  Every  enthusiast  is  a  knave  :  but  he  is 
an  enthusiast.  Therefore  he  is  a  knave."  I  deny  both  the  first  and 
second  proposition.  Nay,  the  first  is  proved  thus  :  "  Enthusiasm 
must  always  be  accompanied  with  craft  and  knavery."  (p.  213.)  It 
often  is  so,  but  not  ahcays ;  for  there  may  be  honest  enthusiasts. 
Therefore  the  whole  account  of  that  odd  combination  which  follows 
is  ingenious,  (p.  214 — 218,)  but  proves  nothing. 

Yet  I  must  touch  upon  one  or  two  parts  of  it.  "  An  enthusiast 
thinks  he  is  dispensed  with  in  breaking,  nay,  that  he  is  authorized  to 
break  the  common  laws  of  morality."  Does  every  enthusiast  1  Then 
I  am  none  :  for  I  never  thought  any  such  thing.  I  believe  no  man 
living  is  authorized  to  break,  or  is  dispensed  Avith  in  breaking  any 
law  of  morality.  I  know,  whoever  (habitually)  breaks  one  of  the 
least  of  these,  shall  be  called  least  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

"  Can  any  but  an  enthusiast  believe,  that  he  may  use  guile  to  pro- 
mote the  glory  of  God?  Yes,  ten  thousand  that  are  no  enthusiasts, 
firmly  believe  this.  How  few  do  we  find  that  do  not  believe  it  ? 
That  do  not  plead  for  officious  lies  ?  How  few  will  subscribe  to  St. 
Augustine's  declaration,  (to  which  I  assent  with  my  whole  heart,) 
•  I  would  not  tell  a  wilful  lie,  to  save  the  souls  of  the  whole  world.' 

But  to  return,  "  The  wisdom  from  above  is  without  partiality  and 
without  hypocrisy.  Partiality  consists  in  dispensing  an  unequal 
measure  in  our  transactions  with  others  :  hypocrisy,  in  attempting  to 
cover  that  unequal  measure  by  prevarication  and  false  pretences." 
1  '"e  former  of  these  definitions  is  not  clear ;  the  latter,  neither  clear, 
nor  adequate  to  be  defined. 

B  it  let  this  pass.  My  partiality  is  now  to  the  point.  What  are 
the  proofs  of  it  ?  1.  "  His  followers  are  always  the  children  of  God, 
his  opposers  the  children  of  the  Devil."  (p.  220.)  Neither  so,  nor 
so.  I  never  affirmed  either  one  or  the  other  universally.  That 
some  of  the  former  are  children  of  God,  and  some  of  the  latter  chil- 
dren of  the  Devil,  I  believe.     But  what  will  this  prove  1 

"  His  followers  are  directed  by  inward  feelings,  the  impulses  of 


^4  A  LETTER  5"0  THE 

an  Inflamed  fancy :"  (no  more  than  they  are  dircctetl  by  the  Koran)  • 
"  his  opposers,  by  the  Scripture."  What !  while  they  are  cursing, 
swearing,  blaspheming  ;  beating  and  maiming  men  that  have  done 
them  no  wrong,  and  treating  women  in  a  manner  too  shocking  to 
be  repeated  1  2.  The  next  proof  is  very  extraordinary.  My  words 
are,  '  I  was  with  two  persons,  who,  I  doubt,  are  properly  enthusiasts : 
for,  first,  they  think  to  attain  the  end  without  the  means,  wliich  is  en- 
thusiasm properly  so  called.  Again,  they  think  themselves  inspired 
of  God,  and  are  not.  But  also,  imaginary  inspiration  is  enthusiasm. 
That  theirs  is  only  imaginary  inspiration  appears  hence,  it  contradicts 
the  law  and  the  testimony.''  p.  221. 

Now,  by  what  art  of  man  can  this  be  made  a  proof  of  my  par- 
tiality ?  Why  thus  :  "  These  are  wise  words.  But  what  do  they 
amount  to  1  Only  to  this  :  that  these  two  persons  would  not  take 
out  their  patents  of  inspiration  from  his  office."  But  what  proof  is 
there  of  this  round  assertion  1  Truly,  none  at  all. 

Full  as  extraordinary  is  the  third  proof  of  my  partiality.  "  Miss 
Gr.  told  Mrs.  Sp.,  Mr.  W.  was  a  Papist.  Upon  this  Miss  Gr.  is  ana- 
thematized. And  we  are  told,  that  in  consequence,  she  had  lately 
been  raving  mad,  and  as  such  was  tied  down  in  her  bed.  Yet  all 
these  circumstances  of  madness  have  befallen  his  favourite  saints, 
whom  he  has  vindicated  from  the  opprobium."  p.  222. 

The  passage  in  my  Journal  stands  thus  :  '  Mrs.  Spa told  me, 

two  or  three  nights  since.  Miss  Gr.  met  me,  and  said,  I  assure  you. 
Mr.  Wesley  is  a  Papist.  Perhaps  I  need  observe  no  more  upon  this, 
than  that  Miss  Gr.  had  lately  been  raving  mad,  in  consequence  of  a 
fever ;  (not  of  an  anathema,  which  never  had  any  being,)  that  as  such 
she  was  tied  down  in  her  bed  ;  and  as  soon  as  she  was  suffered  to 
go  abroad,  went  to  Mr.  VVhitefield,  to  inquire  of  him  whether  she 
was  not  a  Papist.  But  he  quickly  perceived,  she  was  only  a  lunatic, 
the  nature  of  her  disorder  soon  betraying  itself"  Certainly  then 
my  allowing  her  to  be  mad,  is  no  proof  of  my  partiality.  I  will  al- 
low every  one  to  be  so,  who  is  attended  with  "  all  these  circum- 
stances of  madness." 

4.  "  He  pronounces  sentence  of  enthusiasm  upon  another,  and 
tells  us  wherefore,  without  any  disguise.  Here  I  took  leave  of  a 
poor,  mad,  original  enthusiast,  who  had  been  scattering  lies  in  every 
quarter."  It  was  the  famous  John  Adams,  since  confined  at  Box, 
whose  capital  lie,  the  source  of  the  rest  was,  that  he  was  a  prophet, 
greater  tlian  Moses,  or  any  of  the  apostles.  And  is  the  pronouncing 
liim  a  madman  a  proof  of  my  partiality  ? 

5.  "  1  had  much  conversation  with  Mr.  Simpson,  an  original  en- 
thusiast, i  desired  him  in  the  evening  to  give  an  exhortation.  He 
did  so,  and  spoke  many  good  things,  in  a  manner  peculiar  to  himself," 
(without  order  or  connexion,  head  or  tail :  and  in  a  language  very 
near  as  mystical  as  that  of  Jacob  Behmen.)  "  When  he  had  done, 
I  summed  up  what  he  had  said,  methodizing  and  explaining  it.  O 
what  pity  it  is,  this  well-meaning  man  should  ever  speak  without  an 
iiiterpreter."  p.  223. 


BISHOP  OF  GLOUCESTER,  86 

Let  this  passage  likewise  stand  as  it  is,  and  who  can  guess  how  it 
is  to  prove  my  partiality  ?  But  by  a  slight  of  hand,  the  thing  is  done. 
*«  How  diiferently  does  Mr.  Wesley  treat  these  two  enthusiasts  ! 
The  first  is  accused  of  spreading  lies  of  his  Master  :"  (No,  he  never 
was  any  disciple  of  mine. )  "  On  which  Mr.  W.  took  his  leave  of  him  ; 
a  gentle  expression,  to  signify  the  thrusting  him  out  head  and  shoul- 
ders, from  the  society  of  saints."  It  signifies  neither  more  nor  less, 
than  that  I  went  out  of  the  room  and  left  him.  "  The  others  enthu- 
siasm is  made  to  consist  only  in  want  of  method."  No.  His  enthu- 
siasm did  not  consist  in  this.  It  was  the  cause  of  it.  But  he  was 
quite  another  man  than  John  Adams  :  and,  I  believe,  a  right  hones! 
man. 

6.  "  I  was  both  surprised  and  grieved  at  a  genuine  instance  of  en- 
thusiasm. I.  B.,  who  had  received  a  sense  of  the  love  of  God  a 
few  days  before,  came  riding  through  the  town,  hollowing,  and 
shouting,  and  driving  all  the  people  before  him,  telling  thenl,  '  God 
had  told  him,  he  should  be  a  king,  and  should  tread  all  his  enemies 
imder  his  feet.'  I  sent  him  home  immediately  to  his  work,  and  ad- 
vised him  to'cry  day  and  night  to  God  that  he  might  be  lowly  in 
heart,  lest  Satan  should  again  get  an  advantage  over  him.^^ 

What  this  proves,  or  is  intended  to  prove,  I  cannot  tell.  Cer- 
tainly neither  this,  nor  any  of  the  preceding  pages,  prove  the  point 
now  in  question,  my  partiality.  So  this  likewise  is  wholly  unproved 
still. 

"  We  shall  end  where  every  frantic  leader  ends,  with  his  hypoc- 
risy." (p.  227.)  Five  arguments  are  brought  in  proof  of  this.  I 
shall  take  them  in  their  order.  1 .  "  After  having  heaped  up  mira- 
cles one  upon  another,  he  sneaks  away  under  the  protection  of  a  puny 
wonder.  '  About  five  I  began  near  the  keelman's  hospital,  man}' 
thousands  standing  round.  The  wind  was  high  just  before,  but 
scarcely  a  breath  was  felt  all  the  time  we  assembled  before  God.  I 
praise  God  for  this  also.  Is  it  enthusiasm,  to  see  God  in  every 
benefit  we  receive  V  It  is  not ;  the  enthusiasm  consists  in  believing 
those  benefits  to  be  conferred,  through  a  change  in  the  established 
course  of  nature.  But  here  he  insinuates,  that  he  meant  no  more  by 
his  miracles,  than  the  seeing  God  in  every  benefit  we  receive."  (p. 
228,  229.)  That  sudden  and  total  ceasing  of  the  wind,  I  impute  to 
ihe  particular  providence  of  God.  This  I  mean  hy  seeing  God  therein. 
But  this  I  knew  many  would  count  enthusiasm.  In  guarding  against 
it,  I  had  an  eye  to  that  single  incident,  and  no  other.  Nor  did  1  in- 
.sinuate  any  thing  more  than  I  expressed,  in  as  plain  a  manner  as  1 
could. 

A  little  digression  follows.  "  A  friend  of  his  advises,  not  to  es- 
tablish the  power  of  working  miracles,  as  the  great  criterion  of  a 
divine  mission  :  seeing  the  agreement  of  doctrines  with  Scripture,  is 
the  only  infallible  rule."  (p  230.)  "But  Christ  himself  establishes 
the  power  of  working  miracles,  as  the  great  criterion  of  a  divine 
mission."  (p.  231.)  True,  of  amission  to  be  the  Saviour  of  the 
world  :  to  put  a  period  to  the  Jewish,  and  introduce  the  Christian 

Vol.  9.— I 


00  A   LETTEU   TO  TOK 

dispensation.  And  -whoever  pretends  to  such  a  mission,  will  staml 
in  such  need  of  such  credentials. 

2.  "  He  shifts  and  doubles  no  less"  (neither  less  nor  more)  "  as  to 
the  ecstacies  of  his  saints.  Sometimes  they  are  of  God,  sometimes 
of  the  Devil ;  but  he  is  constant  in  this,  that  natural  causes  have  no 
hand  in  them."  This  is  not  true.  In  what  are  here  termed  ecsta- 
cies, strong  joy  or  grief,  attended  with  various  bodily  symptoms,  I 
have  openly  affirmed  again  and  again,  that  natural  causes  have  a  part. 
Nor  did  I  ever  shilt  or  double  on  the  head.  I  have  steadily  and 
uniformly  maintained,  that  if  the  mind  be  atfected  to  such  a  degree, 
the  body  must  be  affected  by  the  laws  of  the  vital  union.     The  mind 

1  believe  was,  in  many  of  those  cases,  atfected  by  the  Spirit  of  God, 
in  others  by  the  Devil,  and  in  some  by  both  :  and  in  consequence  of 
this,  the  body  was  affected  also.  3.  "  Mr.  Wesley  says,  I  fear  wc 
have  grieved  the  Spirit  of  the  jealous  God,  by  quer-oning  his  Avork, 
and  by  blaspheming  it,  by  imputing  it  to  nature,  or  even  to  the  Devil." 
(p.  232,  233.)  True  ;  by  imputing  the  conviction  and  conversion  o( 
sinners,  which  is  the  work  of  God  alone,  (because  of  these  unusual 
circumstances  attending  it,)  either  to  nature  or  to  the  Devil.  This  is 
flat  and  plain.  No  prevarication  yet.  Let  us  attend  to  the  next 
])roof  of  it.  "  Innumerable  cautions  were  gfven  me,  not  to  regard 
visions  or  dreams,  or  to  fancy  people  had  remissions  of  sins,  because 
of  their  cries,  or  tears,  or  outward  professions.  The  sum  of  my  an- 
swer was.  You  deny  that  God  does  now  work  these  etfects  ;  at  least, 
that  he  works  them  in  this  manner.  I  affirm  both.  I  have  seen 
vei'y  many  persons  changed  in  a  moment  from  a  spirit  of  fear,  horror, 
despair,  to  a  spirit  of  love,  joy,  peace. — What  I  have  to  say  touching 
visions  and  dreams,  is  this :  I  know  several  persons  in  whom  this 
great  change  v/as  wrought  in  a  dream,  or  during  a  strong  representa- 
tion to  the  eye  of  their  mind,  of  Christ,  either  on  the  cross,  or  in 
glory.  This  is  the  fact.  Let  any  judge  of  it  as  they  please.  And 
that  such  a  change  was  then  wrought,  appears  (not  from  their  shed- 
ding tears  only,  or  falling  into  fits,  or  crying  out :  these  are  not  the 
fruits,  as  you  seem  to  suppose,  whereby  I  judge,  but)  from  the  whole 
tenor  of  their  life,  till  then  many  ways  wicked,  from  that  time  holy, 
and  just,  and  good."  "  Nay,  he  is  so  convinced  of  its  being  tlie  work 
of  God,  that  the  horrid  blasphemies  which  ensued,  lie  ascribes  to  the 
abundance  of  joy  which  God  had  given  to  a  poor,  mad  woman."  (p. 
234.)  Do  I  ascribe  those  blasphemies  to  her  joy  in  God?  No;  but 
to  her  pride.  My  words  are,  '  I  met  with  one,  who,  having  been 
lifted  up  with  the  abundance  of  joy  which  God  had  given  her,  had 
fallen  into  such  blasphemies  and  vain  imaginations,  as  are  not  com- 
mon to  men.  In  the  afteriioon  I  found  another  instance,  nearly  I 
fear,  of  the  same  kind  :  one  who  set  her  private  revelations,  so  called, 
on  the  self-same  foot  with  the  written  word."  p.  235. 

But  how  is  this  to  prove  prevarication  ?     "  Why,  on  a  sudden,  he 
directly  revokes  all  he  had  advanced.     He  says,  '  1  told  them,  they, 
were  not  to  judge  of  the  spirit  whereby  any  one  spoke,  either  by  ap- 
pearances, or  by  common  report,  or  by  their  own  inward  feelings. 


Bisnor   OF   GLOUCESXER.  H  > 

No,  nor  by  any  dreams,  visions,  or  revelations,  supposed  (o  be  made 
to  the  soul,-  any  more  than  by  their  tears,  or  any  invokmtary  effects 
wrought  upon  their  bodies.  I  vt^arned  them,  that  all  these  things 
were  in  themselves  of  a  doubtful,  disputable  nature.  They  might 
be  from  God,  or  they  might  not ;  and  were  therefore  not  simply  to 
be  relied  on,  any  more  than  simply  to  be  condemned,  but  to  be  tried 
by  a  farther  rule,  to  be  lirought  to  the  only  certain  test,  the  law  and 
the  testimony."  "  Now  is  not  this  a  formal  recantation  of  what  he 
had  said  just  above  ?"  ^p.  335.)  Nothing  less,  as  I  will  show  in  two 
minutes,  to  every  calm,  impartial  man.  V\  hat  I  say  now,  I  have 
said  an}^  time  these  thirty  years :  I  have  never  varied  therefrom  for 
an  hour.  '  Every  thing  disputable  is  to  be  brought  to  the  only  cer- 
tain test,  the  law  and  the  testimony.'  "  But  did  not  you  talk  just 
now  of  visions  and  dreams?"  Yes;  but  not  as  of  a  test  of  any 
thing;  only  as  a  channel  through  which  God  is  sometimes  ])leased  to 
convey  « love,  joy,  peace,  long-suffering,  gentleness,  goodness,  fide- 
lity, meekness,  temperance,'  the  indisputable  fruit  of  his  Spirit. 
And  these  we  may  observe,  wherever  they  exist,  must  be  inwardly 
felt.  Now,  where  is  the  prcuarjcrt^ion.''  Where  the  formal  recantation? 
They  are  vanished  into  air. 

But  here  is  more  proof:  "  At  length  he  gives  up  all  these  divine 
agitations  to  the  Devil,  (p.  236.)  I  inquired,  says  he,  into  the  ca?c 
of  those  who  had  lately  cried  out  aloud  during  the  preaching.  I 
found  this  had  come  upon  every  one  of  them  in  a  moment,  withoiil 
any  previous  notice.  In  that  moment  they  dropped  down,  lost  all 
llieir  strength,  and  were  seized  with  violent  pain.  Some  said  they 
felt  as  if  a  sword  vv^ere  running  through  them :  others  as  if  their 
whole  body  were  tearing  in  pieces.  These  symptoms  I  can  no 
more  impute  to  any  natural  cause,  than  to  the  Spirit  of  God,  I 
make  no  doubt  but  it  was  Satan  tearing  them  as  they  were  comiuff 
to  Christ."  p.  237- 

"  Now  these  were  the  very  symptoms  which  he  had  before  ascribed 
to  the  Spirit  of  God."  Never  in  my  life.  Indeed  some  of  them  I 
never  met  with  before.  Those  outward  symptoms  which  I  had  met 
with  before,  bodily  agitations  in  particular,  1  did  not  ascribe  to  the 
Spirit  of  God,  but  to  the  natural  union  of  the  soul  and  body.  And 
those  symptoms  which  I  now  ascribe  to  the  Devil,  I  never  ascribed 
to  any  other  cause.  The  second  proof  of  my  prevarication  or  hy- 
pocrisy is  therefore  just  as  conclusive  as  the  first. 

3.  Now  for  the  third.  "  Mr.  W.  before  spoke  contemptuously  of 
orthodoxy,  to  take  in  the  sectaries.  But  when  he  would  take  oil 
churchmen,  then  orthodoxy,  is  the  unum  necessarium.^^  Did  lever 
say  so  1  No  more  than  (in  the  other  extreme)  speak  contemptuously 
of  it.  "  Yes,  you  say,  I  described  the  plain,  old  religion  of  the 
Church  of  England,  which  is  now  almost  every  where  spoken 
against,  under  the  new  name  of  Methodism."  Very  M^ell :  and  what 
shadow  of  prevarication  is  here  *?  May  I  not  still  declare  the  plain, 
old  rel'gion  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  yet  very  consistent!} 
aver,  that  right  opinion  is  a  very  slender  part  of  it  ? 


A  LETTER  TO  THE 


4.  The  next  passage,  I  am  sorry  to  say,  is  neither  related  with  se- 
riousness nor  truth.  "We  have  seen  him  inviting  persecution.'" 
Never:  though  I  "rejoiced"  in  the  instance  alleged,  at  having  an 
opportunity  of  calling  a  multitude  of  the  most  abandoned  sinners  to 
repentance.  What  is  peculiarly  unfair  is,  the  lame,  false  account  is 
palmed  upon  me,  by  "so  he  himself  tells  the  story.-'  I  must  there- 
fore tell  the  story  once  more,  in  as  (ew  words  as  I  can. 

Sunday,  Aug.  7,  1737,  I  repelled  Mrs.  W.  from  the  communion. 
Tuesday  9,  I  was  required  by  Mr.  Bailiff  Parker  to  appear  at  the 
next  court.  Trmrsday  11,  Mr.  Causton,  her  uncle,  said  to  me, 
"Give  your  reasons  for  repelling  her  before  the  whole  congregation." 
I  answered,  '  Sir,  if  you  insist  upon  it,  I  will.'  But  I  heard  no  more 
of  it.  Afterward  he  said  (but  not  to  me)  "Mr.  W.  had  repelled 
Sophy  out  of  revenge,  because  he  had  made  proposals  of  marriage 
to  her  which  she  rejected."  Tuesday  16,  Mrs.  W.  made  affidavit  of 
it.  Thursday,  Sept.  1,  a  Grand  Jury,  perpared  by  Mr.  Causton,  found, 
that  "John  Wesley  had  broken  the  laws  of  the  realm,  by  speaking 
and  writing  to  Mrs.  W.  against  her  husband's  consent,  and  by  repel- 
ling her  from  the  communion." 

Friday  2,  was  the  third  court  day  at  which  1  appeared  since  my 
being  required  so  to  do  by  Mr.  Parker.  I  moved  for  an  immediate 
hearing;  but  was  put  off  till  the  next  court  day.  On  the  next  court 
day  I  appeared  again,  as  also  at  the  two  courts  following;  but  could 
not  be  heard.  Thursday,  Nov.  3,  I  appeared  in  court  again;  and  yet 
again  on  Tuesday,  Nov.  22,  on  which  day  Mr.  C.  desired  to  speak 
with  me,  and  read  me  an  affidavit,  in  which  it  was  affirmed,  that  1 
"  abused  Mr.  C.  in  his  own  house,  calling  him  liar,  villain,  and  so  on.'- 
It  was  likewise  repeated,  that  1  had  been  reprimanded  at  the  last 
court,  by  Mr.  C.  as  an  enemy  to,  and  hinderer  of,  the  public  peace, 

'  My  friends  agreed  with  me,  that  the  time  we  looked  for,  was  now 
come.  And  the  next  morning,  calling  on  Mr.  C.  I  told  him,  « 1  de- 
signed to  set  out  for  England  immediately.' 

Friday,  Decern.  2,  1  proposed  to  set  out  for  Carolina  about  noon. 
But  about  ten,  the  magistrates  sent  for  me,  and  told  me,  "  I  must  not 
go  out  of  the  province  :  for  I  had  not  answered  the  allegations  laid 
against  me."  I  replied,  '  I  had  appeared  at  six  or  seven  courts,  in 
order  to  answer  them,  but  I  was  not  suffered  so  to  do."  After  a  few 
more  words,  I  said,  <  You  use  me  very  ill.  And  so  you  do  the  trus- 
tees. You  know  your  business  and  I  know  mine.'  In  the  after- 
noon, they  published  an  order,  forbidding  any  to  assist  me  in  going- 
out  of  the  province.  'But  I  knew,  I  had  no  more  business  there. 
So  as  evening  prayer  was  over,  the  tide  then  serving,  I  took  boat  at 
the  Bluff  for  Carolina.' 

This  is  the  plain  account  of  the  matter.  I  need  only  add  a  re- 
mark or  two  on  the  pleasantry  of  my  censurer.  "He  had  recourse 
as  usual,  to  his  revelations.  I  consulted  my  friends,  whether  God 
did  not  call  me  to  England."  (p.  242.)  Not  by  revelations :  these 
were  out  of  the  question ;  but  by   clear,  strong  reasons^     "  The 


y 


BISHOP    OF   GLOrCKSTER.  SV 

magistrate  soon  quickened  his  pace,  by  declaring  him  an  enemy  to 
the  public  peace."  No  ;  that  senseless  assertion  of  Mr.  C.  made  me 
go  neither  sooner  or  later.  "  The  reader  has  seen  him  long  lan- 
guish for  persecution."  What,  before  November,  17371  I  never 
languished  for  it  either  before  or  since.  But  I  submit  to  what  pleases 
God.  "  To  hide  his  poltronery  in  a  bravado,  he  gave  public  notice 
uf  his  apostolical  intention."  (p.  243.)  Kind  and  civil  I  I  may  be  ex- 
cused from  taking  notice  of  what  follows.  It  is  equally  serious  and 
genteel. 

"  Had  his  longings  for  persecution  been  without  hypocrisy."  The 
same  mistake  throughout.  I  never  longed  or  professed  to  long  for  it 
at  all.  But  if  i  had  professed  it  ever  since  I  returned  from  Georgia, 
what  was  done  before  1  returned  could  not  prove  that  profession  to  b( 
hypocrisy.  So  all  this  ribaldry  serves  no  end  ;  only  to  throw  mucit 
dirt,  if  haply  some  rnay  stick. 

Meantime,  how  many  untruths  arc  herein  one  page!  1.  "He 
made  the  path  doubly  perplexed  for  his  followers.  2.  He  left  them 
to  answer  for  his  crimes.  3.  He  longed  for  persecution.  4.  He 
went  as  far  as  Georgia  for  it.  5.  The  truth  of  his  mission  was  ques- 
tioned by  the  magistrate,  and,  6.  Decried  by  the  people.  7.  For  his 
false  morals.  8.  The  gospel  was  wounded  through  the  sides  of  its 
pretended  missionary.  9.  The  first  Christian  preachers  offered  up 
themselves:"  (so  did  T.)  "Instead  of  this,  our  paltry  mimic." 
(p.  244.)  Bona  verba!  Surely  a  writer  should  reverence  himself, 
how  much  soever  he  despises  his  opponent.  So  upon  the  whole, 
this  proof  of  my  hypocrisy  is  as  lame  as  the  three  former. 

5.  "  We  have  seen  above,  how  he  sets  all  prudence  at  defiance." 
None  hnt  false  prudence.  "  But  he  uses  a  different  language  when 
his  rivals  are  to  be  restrained."  No  :  always  the  same,  both  with  re- 
gard to  false  prudence  and  true. 

"  But  take  the  affair  from  the  beginning.  He  began  to  svispect 
rivals  in  the  year  thirty-nine  :  for  he  says,  '  Remembering  how  many 
that  came  after  me  were  preferred  before  me.'"  The  very  next 
words  show  in  what  sense.  They  had  attained  itnto  the  law  of  right- 
eousness :  I  had  not.     But  what  has  this  to  do  with  rivals  1 

However,  go  on.  "  At  this  time  (Dec.  8,  1739,)  his  opening  the 
Bible  afforded, him  but  small  relief.  He  sunk  so  far  in  his  despond- 
ency, as  to  doubt  if  God  would  not  lay  him  aside,  and  send  other  la- 
bourers into  his  harvest."  But  this  was  another  time.  It  was  June 
22.  And  the  occasion  of  the  doubt  is  expressly  mentioned.  « I 
preached,  but  had  no  life  or  spirit  in  me,  and  was  much  in  doubt,' 
on  that  account.  Not  on  account  of  Mr.  Whitefield.  He  did  not 
'  now  begin  to  set  up  for  himself.'  We  were  in  full  union  ;  nor  was 
there  the  least  shadow  of  rivalry  or  contention  between  us.  I  still 
sincerely  "  praise  God  for  his  wisdom,  in  giving  different  talents  to 
different  preachers,"  (p.  250,)  and  particularly  for  his  giving  Mr. 
Wh.  the  talents  which  I  have  not. 

6.  What  farther  proof  of  hypocrisy  ?  Whv,  "he  had  given  inntT- 

1  2 


90  A   LETTEK   TO   THE 

merable  flirts  of  contempt  in  his  Journals  against  human  learning." 
(p.  352,  253.)  Where  ?  I  do  not  know.  Let  the  passages  be  cited  : 
else  let  me  speak /or  it  ever  so  much,  it  will  prove  nothing.  "  At 
last  he  was  forced  to  have  recourse  to  what  he  had  so  much  scorn- 
ed, I  mean,  prudence."  (p.  255.)  All  a  mistake.  I  hope  never  to 
have  recourse  to  false  prudence  ;  and  true  prudence  I  never  scorned. 

"  He  might  have  met  Mr.  Wh.  half  way  :  but  he  was  too  formi- 
dable a  rival.  With  a  less  formidable  one  he  pursues  this  way.  1 
laboured,  says  he,  to  convince  Mr.  Gr."  (my  assistant,  not  rival) 
•'  that  he  had  not  done  well,  in  confuting,  as  he  termed  it,  the  ser- 
mon I  preached  the  Sunday  before.  1  asked,  will  you  meet  me  halt' 
way  1  (the  words  following  put  my  meaning  beyond  all  dispute.) 
I  will  never  publicly  preach  against  you.  Will  not  you  agamst  me  ? 
Here  we  see  a  fair  invitation  to  Mr.  Gr.  to  play  the  hypocrite  with 
him."  Not  in  the  least.  Each  might  simply  deliver  his  own  senti- 
ments, without  preaching  against  the  other.  "  We  conclude  that 
Mr.  Wesley,  amidst  his  warmest  exclamations  against  all  prudence, 
had  still  a  succedaneum,  which  he  indeed  calls  prudence.  But  its 
true  name  is  craft."  p.  257. 

Craft  is  an  essential  part  of  worldly  prudence.  This  I  detest  and 
abhor.  And  let  him  prove  it  upon  me  that  can.  But  it  must  be  by 
better  arguments  than  the  foregoing.  Truly  Christian  prudence, 
such  as  was  recommended  by  our  Lord,  and  practised  by  him  and 
Ills  apostles,  1  reverence  and  desire  to  learn,  being  convinced  of  its 
abundant  usefulness. 

I  know  nothing  material  in  the  argument  which  I  have  left  un- 
touched. And  1  must  now  refer  it  to  all  the  world,  whether,  for  all 
that  has  been  brought  to  the  contrary,  1  may  not  still  have  a  measure 
of  the  '  wisdom  from  above,  which  is  first  pure,  then  peaceable  ; 
gentle,  easy  to  be  entreated  ;  full  of  mercy  and  good  fruits ;  without 
partiality  and  without  hypocrisy.' 

I  have  spoken  abundantly  more  concerning  myself  than  1  intended 
or  expected.  Yet  I  must  beg  leave  to  add  a  few  words  more.  How 
far  I  am  from  being  an  enemy  to  prudence,  I  hope  appears  already. 
It  remains  to  inquire,  whether  I  am  an  enemy  to  reason  or  natural 
religion  ? 

"  As  to  the  first,  he  frankly  tells  us.  The  father  of  lies  was  the  fa- 
ther of  reasonings  also.  For  he  says,  I  observed  more  and  more 
the  advantage  Satan  had  gained  over  us.  Many  were  thrown  into 
idle  reasonings."  (p.  298.)  Yes,  and  they  were  hurt  thereby.  But 
reason  is  good,  though  idle  reasonings  are  evil.  Nor  does  it  follow,, 
that  I  am  an  enemy  to  the  one,  because  I  condemn  the  other. 

"  However,  you  are  an  enemy  to  natural  religion.  For  you  say. 
A  Frenchman  gave  us  a  full  account  of  the  Chicasaws.  They  do 
nothing  but  eat,  and  drink,  and  smoke,  from  morning  till  night,  and 
almost  from  night  till  morning.  For  they  arise  at  any  hour  of  the 
oight  when  they  awake,  and  after  eating  and  drinking  as  much  as 
they  can,  go  to  sleep  again.     Hence  we  could  not  but  remark,  what 


:BISH0P   of   (iLOUCi;ST£R.  9i 

is  the  religion  of  nature^  properly  so  called,  or  that  religion  which 
flows  from  natural  reason,  unassisted  by  revelation."  (p.  290.)  I  be- 
lieve this  dispute  may  be  cut  short  by  only  defining  the  term.  What 
does  your  lordship  mean  by  natural  religion  ?  A  system  of  principles  ? 
But  I  mean  by  it,  in  this  place,  men's  natural  manners.  These  cer- 
tainly "  flow  from  their  natural  passions  and  appetites,"  with  that  de- 
gree of  reason  which  they  have.  And  this,  in  other  instances,  is  not 
contemptible  ;  though  it  is  not  sufficient  to  teach  them  true  religion. 

II.  I  proceed  to  consider,  in  the  second  place,  what  is  advanced 
concerning  the  operations  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

"  Our  blessed  Redeemer  promised  to  send  among  his  followers  the 
Holy  Ghost,  called  '  the  Spirit  of  Truth  and  the  Comforter,'  which 
should  co-operate  with  man,  in  establishing  his  faith,  and  in  perfect- 
ing his  obedience ;  or  in  other  words,  should  sanctify  him  to  redemp- 
tion." p.  2. 

Accordingly,  "  the  sanctification  and  redemption  of  the  Avorld, 
man  cannot  frustrate  nor  render  inetfectual.  For  it  is  not  in  his 
power  to  make  that  to  be  undone,  which  is  once  done  and  perfected." 
p.  337. 

I  do  not  comprehend.  Is  all  the  world  sanctified  1  Is  not  to  be 
sanctified  the  same  as  to  be  made  holy  1  Is  all  the  world  holy  ?  And 
''can  no  man  frustrate"  his  own  sanctification  1 

"  The  Holy  Ghost  establishes  our  faith,  and  perfects  our  obedience, 
by  enlightening  the  understanding,  and  rectifying  the  will."   p.  3. 

"  In  the  former  respect,  1.  He  gave  the  gift  of  tongues  at  the  day 
of  Pentecost." 

"  Indeed  enthusiasts  in  their  ecstacies  have  talked  very  fluently  in 
languages  they  had  a  very  imperfect  knowledge  of  in  their  sober  in- 
tervals." I  can  no  more  believe  this  on  the  credit  of  Lord  Shaftes- 
bury and  a  Popish  exorcist,  than  I  can  believe  the  tale  of  '  a  hun- 
dred people  talking  without  tongues,'  on  the  credit  of  Dr.  Mid- 
dleton. 

"  The  other  gifts  of  the  Spirit  St.  Paul  reckons  up  thus.  '  To 
one  is  given  the  word  of  wisdom,  to  another  the  word  of  knowledge, 
to  another  the  gifts  of  healing,  to  another  working  of  miracles,  to 
another  prophecy,  to  another  the  discerning  of  spirits. "■  "  (p.  23.) 
But  why  are  the  other  three  left  out]  'Faith,  divers  kinds  of 
tongues,'  and  the  '  interpretation  of  tongues  ]' 

I  believe  the  '  word  of  wisdom'  means,  light  to  explain  the  mani- 
fold wisdom  of  God  in  the  grand  scheme  of  gospel  salvation  ;  the 
'  word  of  knowledge,'  a  power  of  explaining  the  Old  Testament 
types  and  prophecies.  '  Faith,'  may  mean,  an  extraordinary  trust  in 
God,  under  the  most  difficult  and  dangerous  circumstances  :  '  The 
gifts  of  healing,'  a  miraculous  power  of  curing  diseases  :  '  the  dis- 
cerning of  spirits,'  a  supernatural  discernment,  whether  men  were 
upright  or  not]  Whether  they  were  qualified  for  offices  in  the 
church  1  And  whether  they  who  professed  to  speak  by  inspiration^ 
really  did  so  or  not  ? 

But  "  the  richest  of  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit  is  the  '  inspiration  of 


S2  A   liETTEK    TO   THE 

Scripture.'  (p.  30.)  Herein  the  promise,  that  'the  Comforter'  shoulJ 
*  abide  with  us  for  ever,'  is  eminently  fulfilled.  For  though  his  or- 
dinary influence  occasionally  assists  the  faithful  of  all  ages,  yet  his 
constant  abode  and  supreme  illumination  is  in  the  Scriptures  of  the 
New  Testament,  (p.  39.)  I  mean,  he  is  there  only  as  the  illuminator 
of  the  understanding." 

But  does  this  agree  with  the  following  words  ?  "  Nature  is  not 
able  to  keep  a  mean.  But  grace  is  able  ;  for  '  the  Spirit  helpeth  our 
infirmities.'  We  must  apply  to  the  '  guide  of  truth,'  to  prevent  our 
being  '  carried  about  with  divers  and  strange  doctrines.'  "  (p.  340.) 
Is  he  not  then  every  where  to  illuminate  the  understanding,  as  well 
as  to  rectify  the  will  ?  And,  indeed,  do  we  not  need  the  one  as  con- 
tinually as  the  other  1 

"  But  how  did  he  inspire  the  Scripture  ?  He  so  directed  the 
^vriters,  that  no  considerable  error  should  fall  from  them."  (p.  45.) 
Nay,  will  not  the  allowing,  there  is  any  error  in  Scripture,  shake  the 
authority  of  the  whole  ? 

Again,  what  is  the  difference  between  the  immediate  and  the  vir- 
tual influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  ?  I  know  Milton  speaks  of  '  virtual 
or  immediate  touch.'  But  most  incline  to  think,  virtual  touch  is  no 
touch  at  all. 

"  Were  the  style  of  the  New  Testament  utterly  rude  and  barba- 
rous, and  abounding  Avith  every  fault  that  can  possibly  deform  a  lan- 
guage-: this  is  so  far  from  proving  such  language  not  divinely  in- 
quired, that  it  is  one  certain  mark  of  this  original."  (p.  55.)  A  ve- 
hement paradox  this.  But  it  is  not  proved  yet,  and  probably  never 
will. 

"  The  labours  of  those  who  have  attempted  to  defend  the  purity 
of  Scripture-Greek,  have  been  very  idly  employed."  (p.  66.)  Others 
think,  they  have  been  very  wisely  employed,  and  that  they  have 
abundantly  proved  their  point. 

Having  now  '•<  considered  the  operations  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  a? 
the  guide  of  truth,  who  clears  and  enlightens  the  understanding-,  I 
proceed  to  consider  him  as  the  Comforter,  who  purifies  and  supports 
the  will.  (p.  89.)  Sacred  antiquity  is  full  in  its  accounts  of  the  sud- 
den and  entire  change  made  by  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  disposition  and 
manners  of  -^hose  whom  it  had  enlightened  ;  instantaneously  eftacing 
their  evil  habits,  and  familiarizing  them  to  the  performance  of  every 
good  action,  (p.  90.)  No  natural  cause  could  effect  this.  Neither 
fanaticism  nor  superstition,  nor  both  of  them,  will  account  for  so 
sudden  and  lasting  a  conversion.  Superstition  never  effects  any  con- 
siderable change  in  the  manners.  Its  utmost  force  is  just  enough  to 
make  us  exact  in  the  ceremonious  offices  of  religion,  or  to  cause 
some  acts  of  penitence,  as  death  approaches,  (p.  90.)  Fanaticism, 
indeed,  acts  with  greater  violence,  and  by  influencing  the  will,  fre- 
quently forces  the  manners  from  their  bent,  and  sometimes  effaces 
the  strongest  impressions  of  custom  and  nature.  But  this  fervour, 
though  violent,  is  rarely  lasting  ;  never  so  long  as  to  establish  the 
new  system  into  a  habit.     So  that  when  its  rage  subsides,  as  it  very 


BlSlIOr   OP   GLOUCESTER.  9d 

soon  does,  (but  where  it  drives  into  downright  madness)  the  bias  on 
the  will  keeps  abating,  till  all  the  former  habitudes  recover  their  re- 
laxed tone."  p.  92. 

Never  were  reflections  more  just  than  these.  And  whoever  ap- 
plies them  to  the  matters  of  fact,  which  daily  occur  all  over  England, 
and  particularly  in  London,  will  easily  discern  that  the  changes  now 
wrought,  cannot  be  accounted  for  by  natural  causes  ;  not  by  super- 
stition ;  for  the  manners  are  changed ;  the  whole  life  and  conversa- 
tion :  not  hy  fanaticism  ;  for  these  changes  are  so  "  lasting,  as  to 
establish  the  new  system  into  a  habit:"  not  by  mere  reason;  for 
they  are  sudden  ;  therefore  they  can  only  be  wrought  by  the  Holy 
Spirit. 

As  to  Savanarola*s  being  a  frantic,  or  assuming  the  person  of  a 
prophet,  I  cannot  take  a  popish  historian's  word.  And  what  a  man 
says  on  the  rack  proves  nothing :  no  more  than  his  dying  silent^ 
Probably  this  might  arise  from  shame  and  consciousness  of  having 
accused  himself  falsely  uhder  the  torture. 

"  But  how  does  the  Spirit  as  Comforter  abide  with  us  for  ever  ? 
He  abides  with  the  church  for  ever,  ^s  well  personally  in  his  office 
of  comforter,  as  virtually  in  his  office  of  enlightener."  (p.  96.)     . 

Does  he  not  then  abide  with  the  church  personally,  in  both  these 
resjtects  1  What  is  meant  by  abiding  virtually  1  And  what  is  the  dif- 
ference between  abiding  virtually,  and  abiding  personally  ? 

"  The  question  will  be,  Does  he  still  exercise  his  office,  in  the 
same  extraordinary  manner  as  in  the  apostles'  days,"  (p.  97.)  I 
know  none  that  affirms  it.  "  St.  Paul  has  determined  this  question. 
'  Charity,'  says  he,  «  never  faileth.  But  whether  there  be  prophe- 
cies, they  shall  fail,  whether  there  be  tongues,  they  shall  cease, 
whether  there  be  knowledge,  it  shall  vanish  away.'  1  Cor.  xiii, 
8,  &c." 

The  common  opinion  is,  that  this  respects  another  life,  as  he  en- 
forces his  argument  by  this  observation,  '  Now  we  see  through  a  glass 
darkly :  but  then  face  to  face.  Now  we  know  in  part :  but  then 
shall  we  know,  even  as  also  we  are  known.'  1  Cor.  xiii.  12. 

"  But  the  apostle  means,  charity  is  to  accompany  the  church  in 
all  its  stages :  whereas  prophecy  and  all  the  rest  are  only  bestowed 
during  its  infant  state,  to  support  it  against  the  delusions  and  powers 
of  darkness."  p.  100. 

"  The  Corinthians  abounded  in  these  gifts,  but  were  wanting  in 
charity.  'And  this  the  apostle  here  exposes  by  proving  charity  to  be 
superior  to  them  all,  both  in  qualities  and  duration.  The  three  first 
verses  declare  that  the  other  gifts  are  useless  without  charity.  The 
next  four  specify  the  qualities  of  charity  ;  the  remaining  six  declare 
its  continuance,  (p.  102.)  '  Charity  never  faileth  :  but  whether 
there  be  prophecies,  they  shall  fail,  whether  there  be  tongues,  they 
shall  cease,  whether  there  be  knowledge,  it  shall  vanish  away.'  In 
the  next  verse  he  gives  the  reason.  *  For  we  know  in  part,  and  we 
prophesy  in  part ;  but  when  that  which  is  perfect  is  come,  then  that 
which  is  in  part  shall  be  done  away :'  i  e,  when  that  Christian  life^, 


04  A    LETTEK    TO   THE 

the  lines  of  which  are  marked  out  by  the  gospel,  shall  arrive  to  it3 
full  vigour  and  maturity;  then  the  temporary  aids,  given  to  subdue 
prejudice,  and  to  support  the  weak,  shall  like  scaffolding,  be  re- 
moved." In  other  words,  "  when  that  Christian  life,  wherein  the 
apostles  and  first  Christians  were  but  infants,  shall  arrive  to  its  full 
vigour  and  maturity  in  their  successors,  then  miracles  shall  cease." 
But  I  fear  that  time  is  not  yet  come.  I  doubt  none  that  are  now 
alive,  enjoy  more  of  the  vigour  and  maturity  of  the  Christian  life, 
than  the  very  first  Christians  did. 

"  To  show  that  the  loss  of  these  will  not  be  regretted,  when  the 
«;hurch  has  advanced  from  a  state  of  infancy  to  manhood,"  (alas  the 
day  !  Were  the  apostles  but  infants  to  us  ?)  "  he  illustrates  the  case 
by  an  elegant  simihtude.  '  When  I  was  a  child  I  spake  as  a  child . 
- — but  when  I  became  a  man,  1  put  away  childish  things.'  His  next  * 
remark,  concerning  the  defects  of  human  knowledge,  is  only  an  oc- 
casional answer  to  an  objection.  And  the  last  verse  shows,  that  the 
superior  duration  of  charity  refers  to  the  present  life  only.  '  Now 
abideth  faith,  hope,  charity,  these  three  :  but  the  greatest  of  these 
is  charity."  That  is,  you  may  perhaps  object,  faitii  and  hope  will 
Mlc^wise  remain  in  the  church,  when  prophecy,  tongues,  and  know- 
ledge are  ceased  ;  they  will  so  ;  but  still  charity  is  the  greatest,  be- 
cause of  its  excellent  qualities."  p.  107. 

"  The  last  verse  shows  !"  Is  not  this  begging  the  question  ?  How 
forced  is  all  this  ?  The  plain  natural  meaning  of  the  passage  is,  love, 
(the  absolute  necessity,  and  the  nature  of  which  is  shown  in  the 
foregoing  verses,)  has  another  commendation,  it  never  faileth  ;  it 
accompanies  and  adorns  us  to  eternity  'But  whether  there  be 
prophecies,  they  shall  fail,'  when  all  things  are  fulfilled,  and  God  it5 
all  in  all :  '  whether  there  be  tongues,  they  shall  cease.'  One  lan- 
guage shall  prevail  among  all  the  inhabitants  of  heaven,  while  the 
low,  imperfect  languages  of  earth  are  forgotten.  The  knowledge, 
likewise  we  now  so  eagerly  pursue,  shall  then  vanish  away.  As 
star-light  is  lost  in  that  of  the  midday  sun,  so  our  present  knowledge 
in  the  light  of  eternity.  '  For  we  know  in  part,  and  we  prophesy  - 
in  part.'  We  have  here  but  short,  narrow,  imperfect  conceptions,! 
even  of  the  things  round  about  us,  and  much  more  of  the  deep 
things  of  God.  And  even  the  prophecies  which  men  deliver  from 
God,  are  far  from  taking  in  the  whole  of  future  events.  '  But  when 
that  which  is  perfect  is  come,'  at  death,  and  in  the  last  day,  '  that 
which  is  in  part  shall  be  done  away.'  Both  that  low,  imperfect, 
glimmering  light,  which  is  all  the  knowledge  we  can  now  attain  to  ; 
and  these  slow  and  unsatisfactory  methods  of  attaining,  as  well  as  of 
imparting  it  to  others.  '  When  I  was  a  child,  I  talked  as  a  child, 
I  understood  as  a  child,  I  reasoned  as  a  child,'  As  if  he  had  said. 
In  our  present  state,  we  are  mere  infants,  compared  to  what  wo 
shall  be  hereafter  :  '  but  when  I  became  a  man,  I  put  away  childish 
things  :'  and  a  proportionable  change  shall  we  all  find,  when  wo 
launch  into  eternity.  '  Now  we  see,'  even  the  things  which  sur- 
round us,  '  by  means  of  a  glass,'  or  *  mirrorj'  in  a  dim,  faint,  oh- 


BISHOP   OF  GtorCESTEE.  ''c> 

sscure  manner,  so  that  every  thing  is  a  kind  of  riddle  to  us :  but 
then  we  '  shall  see,'  not  a  faint  reflection,  but  the  objects  themselves^ 
'  face  to  face,'  directly  and  distinctly.  *  Now  I  know  but  in  part.' 
Even  when  God  reveals  things  to  me,  great  part  of  them  is  still 
kept  under  the  veil  :  '  but  then  shall  I  know,  even  as  1  also  am 
known :'  in  a  clear,  full,  comprehensive  manner,  in  some  measure 
like  God,  who  penetrates  the  centre  of  every  object,  and  sees  at  one 
glance  through  my  soul  and  all  things.  '  And  now,'  during  the  pre- 
sent life,  <  abide  these  three,  faith,  hope,  love :  but  the  greatest  of 
these,'  in  its  duration,  as  well  as  the  excellence  of  its  nature,  '  is 
love.'  Faith,  hope,  love,  are  the  sum  of  perfection  on  earth  :  love 
alone  is  the  sum  of  perfection  in  heaven, 

"  It  appears  then,  that  the  miraculous  powers  of  the  church,  were 
to  cease  upon  its  perfect  establishment."  (p.  107.)  Nothing  like  it 
appears  from  this  scripture.  But  supposing  it  did,  is  Christianity 
perfectly  established  yet  ]  Even  nominal  Christianity  1  Mr.  Brere- 
wood  took  large  pains  to  be  fully  informed.  And,  according  to  his 
account,  five  parts  in  six  of  the  known  world,  are  Mahometans  or 
Pagans  to  this  day.  If  so,  Christianity  is  yet  far  from  being  per- 
fectly estabhshed,  either  in  Europe,  Asia,  Africa,  or  America. 

"  Having  now  established  the  fact,"  (wonderfully  established  !) 
"  we  may  inquire  into  the  fitness  of  it.  There  were  two  causes  of 
the  extraordinary  operations  of  the  Holy  Spirit^  one  to  manifest  his 
mission,  (and  this  was  done  once  for  all)  the  other  to  comfort  and 
instruct  the  church."  p.  110. 

"  At  his  first  descent  on  the  apostles,  he  found  their  minds  rude 
and  uninformed,  strangers  to  all  heavenly  knowledge,  and  utterly 
averse  to  the  gospel.  He  illuminated  their  minds  with  all  necessary 
truth.  For  a  rule  of  faith  not  being  yet  composed,"  (No  !  had 
they  not  '  the  lav/ and  the  prophets  V)  "  some  extraordinary  infusion 
of  his  virtue  was  still  necessary.  But  when  this  rule  was  perfected, 
part  of  this  office  was  transferred  upon  the  sacied  canon  ;  and  his 
enlightening  grace  was  not  to  be  expected  in  such  abundant  measure, 
as  to  make  the  recipients  infallible  guides."  (p  112.)  Certainly  it 
was  not.'*'    If  tliis  be  all  that  is  intended,  no  one  will  gainsay. 

"  Yet  modern  fanatics  pretend  to  as  high  a  degree  of  divine  com- 
munications, as  if  no  such  rule  were  in  being  :"  (I  do  not :)  "or  at 
least,  as  if  that  rule,  needed  the  further  assistance  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  to  explain  his  own  meaning."  This  is  quite  another  thhig. 
I  do  firmly  believe,  (and  what  serious  man  does  not  1)  Omnis  scrip- 
tura  legi  debet  eo  Spiritu  quo  scripta  est :  we  need  the  same  Spirit  to 
understand  the  Scrijjtijre,  which  enabled  the  holy  men  of  old  to 
write  it. 

''  Again,  the  whole  strength  of  human  prejudices  was  then  set  in 
opposition  to  the  gospel,  to  overcome  the  obstinacy  and  violence  cf 
Avhich,  nothing  less  than  the  power  of  the  Holy  one  was  sufficient, 
(p.  113.)  At  present,  whatever  prejudices  may  remain,  it  draws 
the  other  way."  What,  toward  holiness  1  Toward  temperance  and 
chastity'?    Toward  justice,  mercy,  and  truth?  Quite  the  reverse. 


96  A   LETTER   TO   THE 

And  to  overcome  the  obstinacy  and  violence  of  the  heart-prejudiceir 
which  still  lie  against  these,  the  power  of  the  Holy  One  is  as  neces- 
sary  now,  as  ever  it  was  from  the  beginning  of  the  world, 

"  A  further  reason  for  the  ceasing  of' miracles  is,  the  peace  and 
security  of  the  church.  The  profession  of  the  Christian  faith  is 
now  attended  with  ease  and  honour."  "  The  profession :"  true  : 
l)ut  not  the  thing  itself:  as  '  all  that  will  live  godly  in  Christ  Jesus' 
experience. 

"  But  if  miracles  are  not  ceased,  why  do  you  not  prove  your  mis- 
sion thereby  ?"  As  your  Lordship  has  frequently  spoken  to  this 
effect,  I  will  now  give  a  clear  answer, — And  I  purposely  do  it,  in 
the  same  words  which  1  published  many  years  since. 

1.  I  have  in  some  measure  explained  myself  on  the  head  of  mi- 
racles, in  the  third  part  of  the  Farther  Appeal.  But  since  you  re- 
peat the  demand,  (though  without  taking  any  notice  of  the  arguments 
there  advanced,)  I  will  endeavour  once  more  to  give  you  a  distinct, 
full,  and  determinate  answer.  And,  1.  I  acknowledge  that  I  have 
seen  with  my  eyes,  and  heard  with  my  ears,  several  things,  which, 
to  the  best  of  my  judgment,  cannot  be  accounted  for  by  the  ordinary 
course  of  natural  causes,  and  which,  I  therefore  believe,  ought  to 
be  ascribed  to  the  extraordinary  interposition  of  God.  If  any  man 
choose  to  style  these  miracles,  I  reclaim  not.  I  have  weighed  the 
preceding  and  following  circumstances.  I  have  strove  to  account 
for  them  in  a  natural  way  :  but  could  not,  without  doing  violence  to 
my  reason.  Not  to  go  far  back,  I  am  clearly  persuaded,  that  the 
sudden  deliverance  of  John  Haydon  was  one  instance  of  this  kind, 
and  my  own  recovery  on  May  the  10th,  another.  I  cannot  account 
for  either  of  these  in  a  natural  way.  Therefore  I  believe  they  were 
both  supernatural. 

I  must,  secondly,  observe,  that  the  truth  of  these  facts  is  supported 
by  the  same  kind  of  proof  as  that  of  all  other  facts  is  wont  to  be, 
namely,  the  testimony  of  competent  witnesses.  And  that  the  testi- 
mony here  is  in  as  high  a  degree  as  any  reasonable  man  can  desire. 
Those  witnesses  were  many  in  number  :  they  could  not  be  deceived 
themselves  ;  for  the  fact  in  question  they  saw  with  their  own  eyes, 
and  heard  with  their  own  ears.  Nor  is  it  credible,  that  so  many  ot 
them  would  combine  together  with  a  view  of  deceiving  others  ;  the 
greater  part  being  men  who  feared  God,  as  appeared  by  the  general 
tenor  of  their  lives.  Thus,  in  the  case  of  John  Haydon.  This 
thing  was  not  contrived  and  executed  in  a  corner,  and  in  the  pre- 
sence of  his  own  family  only,  or  three  or  four  persons  prepared  for 
the  purpose.  No  :  it  was  in  an  open  street  in  the  city  of  Bristol,  at 
one  or  two  in  the  afternoon.  And  the  doors  being  open  from  the 
beginning,  not  only  many  of  the  neighbours,  from  every  side,  but 
several  others  (indeed  whosoever  desired  it,)  went  in  till  the  house 
could  contain  no  more.  Nor  yet  does  the  account  of  my  own  ill- 
ness and  recovery  depend,  as  you  suppose,  on  my  bare  word.  There 
were  many  witnesses,  both  of  my  disorder,  on  Friday  and  Saturday, 
and  my  lying  down  most  part  of  Sunday,  (a  thing  they  were  wel} 


BISHOP  OF  GLOUiCESTEU.  9** 

satisfied  could  not  be  the  effect  of  a  slight  indisposition,)  and  all  who 
saw  me  that  evening,  plainly  discerned  (what  I  could  not  wholly  con- 
ceal) that  I  was  in  pain  :  about  two  hundred  of  whom  were  present, 
when  I  was  seized  with  the  cough,  which  cut  me  short,  so  that  I 
could  speak  no  more  ;  till  I  cried  aloud,  '  Loi-d,  increase  my  faith  : 
Lord,  confirm  the  word  of  thy  grace.'  The  same  persons  saw  and 
heard,  that  at  the  instant  I  changed  my  posture,  and  broke  out  into 
thanksgiving :  that  quickly  after  I  stood  upright,  (which  I  could  not 
before)  and  showed  no  sign  either  of  sickness  or  pain. 

Yet  I  must  desire  you  well  to  observe,  thirdly,  that  my  will,  ov 
choice,  or  desire,  had  no  place  either  in  this  or  any  case  of  this  kind, 
that  has  ever  fallen  under  my  notice.  Five  minutes  before,  I  had  no 
thought  of  this.  I  expected  nothing  less.  I  was  willing  to  wait  for 
a  gradual  recovery  in  the  ordinary  use  of  outward  means.  I  did 
3iot  look  for  any  other  cure,  till  the  moment  before  I  found  it.  And 
it  is  my  belief,  that  the  case  was  always  the  same  with  regard  to  the 
most  real  and  undoubted  miracles.  I  believe  God  never  interposed 
his  miraculous  power  but  according  to  his  own  sovereign  Will :  not 
according  to  the  will  of  man  :  neither  of  him  by  whom  he  wrought, 
nor  of  any  other  man  whatsoever.  The  wisdom  as  well  as  the 
)iower  is  his ;  nor  can  I  find  that  ever,  fi'om  the  beginning  of  the 
world,  he  lodged  this  power  in  any  mere  man,  to  be  used  whenever 
that  man  saw  good.  Suppose,  therefore,  there  was  a  man  now 
upon  earth,  who  did  work  "  real  and  undoubted  miracles  ;"  I  would 
ask,  by  whose  power  doth  he  work  these  1  And  at  whose  pleasure  1 
His  own,  or  God's  ?  Not  his  own,  but  God's,  But  if  so,  then  your 
demand  is  made  not  on  man,  but  on  God.  I  cannot  say  it  is  modest 
thus  to  challenge  God ;  or  well-suiting  the  relation  of  a  creature  to 
his  Creator. 

2.  However,  I  cannot  but  think,  there  have  been  already  so  many 
interpositions  of  divine  power,  as  will  shortly  leave  you  without  ex- 
cuse, if  you  either  deny  or  despise  them.  We  desire  no  favour ;  but 
the  justice  that  diligent  inquiry  may  be  made  concerning  them.  We 
are  ready  to  name  the  persons  on  whom  the  power  was  shown  whicli 
belongeth  to  none  but  God ;  (not  one,  er  two,  or  ten,  or  twelvf 
only  ;)  to  point  out  their  places  of  abode  :  and  we  engage  they  shall 
9inswer  every  pertinent  question  fairly  and  directly  ;  and,  if  required, 
shall  give  all  their  answers  upon  oath,  before  any  who  are  empowr-red 
to  receive  them.  It  is  our  particular  request,  that  the  circumstances 
which  went  before,  which  accompanied,  and  which  followed  after 
the  facts  under  consideration,  may  be  thoroughly  examined,  and 
punctually  noted  down.  Let  but  this  be  done,  (and  is  it  not  highly 
iieedful  it  should  ?  At  least  by  those  who  would  form  an  exact 
judgment  1)  and  we  have  no  fear,  that  any  reasonable  man  should 
scruple  to  say,  '  This  hath  God  wrought.' 

As  there  have  been  already  so  many  instances  of  this  kind  far 
beyond  what  we  dared  to  ask  or  think,  I  cannot  take  upon  me  to 
say,  whether  or  not  it  will  please  God  to  add  to  their  number.  1 
l^ave  not  herein  '  known  the  mind  of  the  Lord,'  neither  am  I  •  his 

Vol.  9— K 


'98  A   LETTER   TO   THE 

counsellor,'  He  may,  or  he  may  not :  1  cannot  affirm  or  deny,  i 
have  no  light,  and  I  have  no  desire  either  way,  '  It  is  the  Lord  ; 
let  him  do  what  seemeth  him  good.'  I  desire  only  to  be  as  clay  in 
his  hand. 

3.  "  But  what  if  there  were  now  to  be  wrought  ever  so  many  real 
and  undoubted  miracles "?"  (I  suppose  you  mean  by  undoubted,  such 
as  being  sufficiently  attested,  ought  not  to  be  doubted  Of.)  "Why, 
this,  you  say,  would  put  the  controversy  on  a  short  foot,  and  be  an 
effectual  proof  of  the  truth  of  your  pretences."  By  no  means. 
As  common  as  this  assertion  is,  there  is  none  upon  earth  more  false. 
Suppose  a  teacher  was  now,  on  this  very  day,  to  work  real  and  un- 
doubted miracles,  this  would  extremely  little  shorten  the  controversy 
between  him  and  the  greatest  part  of  his  opposers :  for  all  this  would 
not  force  them  to  believe  ;  but  many  would  still  stand  just  where 
they  did  before  :  seeing  men  may  '  harden  their  hearts'  against  mira- 
cles as  well  as  against  arguments. 

So  men  have  done  from  the  beginning  of  the  world,  even  against 
such  signal,  glorious  miracles,  against  such  interpositions  of  the 
power  of  God,  as  may  not  be  again  till  the  consummation  of  all 
things.  Permit  me  to  remind  you  only  of  a  few  instances  :  and  to 
observe,  that  the  argument  holds  a  fortiori ;  for  who  will  ever  be 
empowered  of  God  again  to  work  such  miracles  as  these  were  1 
Did  Pharaoh  look  on  all  that  Moses  and  Aaron  wrought  as  an  "ef- 
fectual proof  of  the  truth  of  their  pretences  1"  Even  when  the 
Lord  '  made  the  sea  to  be  dry  land,  and  the  waters  were  divided  :* 
when  the  children  of  Israel '  went  into  the  midsi  of  the  sea,'  and  the 
waters  '  were  a  wall  on  the  right  and  on  the  left?  Lxod.  xiv.  21,  22. 
Nay: 

The  wounded  dragon  rag'd  in  vain  ; 

And  fierce,  the  utmost  piagues  lo  brave, 
Madly  he  dar'd  the  parting  main, 

And  sunk  beneath  the  o'erwhelnimg  wave. 

Was  all  this  an  "  effectual  proof  of  the  truth  of  their  pretences,"  to 
the  Israelites  themselves  1  It  was  not :  '  they  were'  still  '  disobe- 
dient at  the  sea,  even  at  the  Red  Sea,'  Was  the  giving  them  day 
by  day  '  bread  from  heaven,'  "  an  effectual  proof"  to  those  ♦  two 
hundred  and  fifty  of  the  princes  of  the  assembly,  famous  in  the  con- 
gregation, men  of  renown,'  who  said  with  Dathan  and  Abiram, 
*  Wilt  thou  put  out  the  eyes  of  these  men  1  We  will  not  come  up.* 
Numb.  xvi.  14.  Nay,  'when  the  ground  clave  asunder  that  was 
under  them,  and  the  earth  opened  her  mouth  and  swallowed  them 
up  !'  (v,  32,)  Neither  was  this  an  "  effectual  proof"  to  those  who 
saw  it  with  their  eyes,  and  heard  the  cries  of  those  who  went  down 
into  the  pit :  but  the  very  next  day,  they  "  murmured  against  Moses, 
and  against  Aaron,  saying.  Ye  have  killed  the  people  of  the  Lord.' 
(v.  4L)  Was  not  the  case  generally  the  same  with  regard  to  the 
prophets  that  followed  1  Several  of  whom  <  stopped  the  mouths  of 
lions,  quenched  the  violence  of  fire,'  and  did  many  other  mighty 
works :  yet  their  own  people  received  them  not.     Yet '  tliey  were 


BISHOt  OP  OLOUCESTEB.  9^ 

Stoned,  they  were  sawn  asunder,  they  were  slain  with  the  sword  ; 
they  were  destitute,  afflicted,  tormented  !'  Utterly  contrary  to  the 
commonly  received  supposition,  "  That  the  working  real,  undoubted 
miracles,  must  bring  all  controversy  to  an  end,  and  convince  every 
gainsayer." 

Let  us  come  nearer  yet.  How  stood  the  case  between  our  Lord 
himself  and  his  opposers  1  Did  he  not  work  real  and  undoubted 
miracles  1  And  what  was  the  effect  1  Still  when  '  he  came  to  his 
own,  his  own  received  him  not.'  Still  <  he  was  despised  and  rejected 
of  men.'  Still  it  was  a  challenge  not  to  be  answered,  '  Have  any  of 
the  rulers,  or  of  the  Pharisees,  believed  on  him  V  After  this,  how 
can  you  imagine,  that  whoever  works  miracles  must  convince  all  men 
of  "  the  truth  of  his  pretences  1" 

I  would  just  remind  you  of  only  one  instance  more.  '  There  sat  a 
certain  man  at  Lysfra,  impotent  in  his  feet,  being  a  cripple  from  his 
mother's  womb,  who  had  never  walked.  The  same  heard  Paul 
speak  ;  who  steadfastly  beholding  him,  and  perceiving  he  had  faith 
to  be  healed,  said,  with  a  loud  voice.  Stand  upright  on  thy  feet.  And 
he  leaped  and  walked.' — Here  was  so  undoubted  a  miracle,  that  the 
people  *  lift  up  their  voices,  saying.  The  gods  are  come  down  in  the 
likeness  of  men.'  But  how  long  were  even  these  convinced  of  "  the 
truth  of  his  pretences  ?"  Only  till  '  there  came  thither  certain  Jews 
from  Antioch  and  Iconium ;'  and  then  they  'stoned  him'  (as  they 
supposed)  to  death  !  Acts  xiv.  1,  &c.  So  certain  it  is,  that  no  mira- 
cles whatever,  that  were  ever  yet  wrought  in  the  world,  were  efl'ect- 
ual  to  prove  the  most  glaring  truth  to  those  who  hardened  their 
hearts  against  it. 

4.  And  it  will  equally  hold  in  every  age  and  nation.  '  If  they 
hear  not  Moses  and  the  prophets,  neither  will  they  be'  convinced 
(of  what  they  desire  not  to  believe)  '  though  one  rose  from  the  dead.' 
Without  a  miracle,  without  one  rising  from  the  dead,  e»v  r^  B-e>iii  voniv, 
'  if  any  man  be  willing  to  do  his  will,  he  shall  know  of  the  doctrine, 
whether  it  be  of  God.'  But  if  he  is  not  '  willing  to  do  his  will,'  he 
will  never  want  an  excuse,  a  plausible  reason  for  rejecting  it :  yea, 
though  ever  so  many  miracles  were  wrought  to  confirm  it.  F(3r  let 
*  ever  so  much  light  come  into  the  world,'  it  will  have  no  effect, 
(such  is  the  wise  and  just  will  of  God,)  on  those  who  '  love  dark- 
ness rather  than  light.' — It  will  not  convince  those  who  do  not  sim- 
ply desire  to  do  <  the  will  of  their  Father  which  is  in  heaven.' 
Those  'who  mind  earthly  things,'  who  (if  they  do  not  continue  in 
any  gross  outward  sin,  yet)  love  pleasure  and  ease  ;  yet  seek  profit 
or  power,  preferment,  or  reputation.  Nothing  will  ever  be  an  ef- 
fectual proof  to  these,  of  the  holy  and  acceptable  will  of  God,  unless 
first  their  proud  hearts  be  humbled,  their  stubborn  wills  bowed 
down,  and  their  desires  brought,  at  least,  in  some  degree,  into  obe- 
dience to  the  law  of  Christ. 

Hence,  although  it  should  please  God  to  work  anew  all  the  won- 
ders that  ever  were  wrought  on  earth,  still  these  men,  however  wise 
and  prudent  they  may  be  in  things  relating  to  the  present  world, 


3  00  A   LlSTTlTR   TO   THE 

would  figkt  against  God  and  all  his  messengers,  and  that  in  spite  of 
these  miracles.  Meanwhile  God  will  reveal  his  truth  '  unto  babes,' 
unto  those  who  are  meek  and  lowly,  whose  desires  are  in  heaven- 
who  want  to  'know  nothing  save  Jesus  Christ  and  him  crucified.'— 
These  need  no  outward  miracles  to  show  them  his  will ;  they  have 
a  plain  rule,  the  written  word.  And  '  the  anointing  which  they 
have  received  of  him,  abideth  in  them,  and  teacheth  them  ail  things.' 
(1  John  ii.  27.)  Through  this  they  are  enabled  to  bring  all  doctrines 
'  to  the  law  and  the  testimony,'  And  whatsoever  is  agreeable  to 
this  they  receive,  without  waiting  to  see  it  attested  by  miracles. 
As,  on  the  other  hand,  whatsoever  is  contrary  to  this  they  reject ; 
nor  can  any  miracles  move  them  to  receive  it. 

5.  Yet  I  do  not  know,  that  God  hath  any  where  precluded  him- 
self from  thus  exerting  his  sovereign  power,  from  working  miracles, 
in  any  kind  or  degree,  in  any  age,  to  the  end  of  the  world.  1  do 
not  recollect  any  scripture  wherein  we  are  taught  that  miracles  were 
to  be  confined  within  the  limits  either  of  the  Apostofic  or  the  Cy- 
jn'ianic  age,  or  of  any  period  of  time,  longer  or  shorter,  even  till  the 
restitution  of  all  things.  I  have  not  observed,  either  in  the  Old  Tes^ 
tament  or  the  New,  any  intimation  at  all  of  this  kind.  St.  Paul  in- 
deed says  once,  concerning  two  of  the  miraculous  gifts  of  the  Spirit, 
(so  I  think  that  text  is  usually  understood,^)  'whether  there  be 
prophecies,  they  shall  fail ;  whether  there  be  tongues,  they  shall 
cease  ;'  but  he  does  not  say,  either  that  these  or  any  other  miracles 
shall  cease,  till  faith  and  hope  shall  cease  also  ;  till  they  shall  all  be 
swallowed  up  in  the  vision  of  God,  and  love  be  all  in  all. 

I  presume  you  will  allow,  there  is  one  kind  of  miracles  (loosely 
speaking)  which  are  not  ceased:  namely,  re^ocTa-^^ev^ii?,  lying  wonders^ 
diabolical  miracles,  wrought  by  the  power  of  evil  spirits.  Nor  can 
3'ou  easily  conceive,  that  these  will  cease,  as  long  as  the  '  father  oi 
lies'  is  the  'prince  of  this  world.'  And  why  should  you  think,  that 
the  God  of  Truth  is  less  active  than  he,  or  that  he  will  not  have  his 
miracles  also  ?  Only  not  as  man  wills,  neither  when  he  wills  ;  but 
according  to  his  own  e:^cellent  wisdom  and  goodness. 

6.  But  even  if  it  were  supposed,  that  God  does  now  work  beyond 
the  operation  of  merely  natural  causes,  yet  what  impression  would 
this  make  upon  you,  in  the  disposition  of  mind  you  are  now  in  1  Sup- 
pose the  trial  was  repeated,  and  made  again  to-morrow.  One  in- 
forms you  the  next  day,  "  While  a  clergyman  was  preaching  yester- 
day, where  I  was,  a  man  came  who  had  been  long  ill  of  an  incurable 
distemper.  Prayer  was  made  for  him.  And  he  was  restored  to 
perfect  health." 

Suppose  now  that  this  was  a  real  fact,  perhaps  you  would  scarce 
have  patience  to  hear  the  account  of  it :  but  would  cut  it  short  in 
the  midst,  with  '  Do  you  tell  this  as  something  supernatural  1  Then 
miracles  are  not  ceased.'  But  if  you  should  venture  to  ask,  Where 
was  this?  And  who  was  the  person  that  prayed  ?  And  it  was  an- 
swered, "  At  the  Foundry  near  Moorfields;  the  person  who  prayed 
was  Mr.  Wesley,"     What  a  damp  comes  at  once  !  What  a  weig:hl 


filSHOP   OF   GL9VCESTER. 


101 


h\h  on  your  mind  at  the  first  setting  out  !  It  is  well  if  you  have  any 
heart  or  desire  to  move  one  step  farther.  Or  if  you  should,  what  a 
strong  additional  propensity  do  you  now  feel  to  deny  the  fact  ?  And 
is  there  not  a  ready  excuse  for  so  doing  *?  "  O  !  they  who  tell  the 
story  are  his  own  people  ;  most  of  whom  we  may  be  sure,  will  say 
any  thing  for  him,  and  the  rest  will  believe  any  thing." — But  if  you 
at  length  allowea  the  fact,  might  you  not  find  means  to  account  for 
it  by  natural  causes  1  "  Great  crowds,  violent  heats,  with  obstruc- 
tions and  irregularities  of  the  blood  and  spirits,"  will  do  wonders. — 
if  you  could  not  but  allo\v  it  was  more  than  natural,  might  not  some 
plausible  reason  be  found,  for  ranking  it  among  the  lying  wonders, 
for  ascribing  it  to  the  Devil  rather  than  God  ]  And  if,  after  all,  you 
were  convinced  it  was  the  finger  of  God,  must  you  not  still  bring 
every  doctrine  advanced  '  to  the  law  and  the  testimony,'  the  only 
sure  and  infallible  test  of  all  1 — What  then  is  the  use  of  this  conti- 
nual demand,  "  Show  us  a  sign,  and  we  will  believe  ?'  What  will  you 
believe  1  1  hope  no  more  than  is  written  in  the  Book  of  God.  And 
thus  far  you  might  venture  to  believe,  even  without  a  miracle. 

7.  Let  us  consider  this  point  a  little  farther.  "  What  is  it  you 
would  have  us  prove  by  miracles  ?  The  doctrines  we  preach  1"  We 
prove  these  by  Scripture  and  reason  ;  and  if  need  be  by  antiquity. 
What  else  is  it  then  we  areto  prove  by  miracles  1  At  length  we  have 
a  distinct  reply.  "  Wise  and  sober  men  will  not  otherwise  be  con- 
vinced" (i.  e.  unless  you  prove  it  by  miracles)  "  that  God  is,  by  the 
means  of  such  teachers  and  such  doctrines,  working  a  great  and  ex- 
traordinary work  in  the  earth."  So  then  the  determinate  point 
which  you,  in  their  name,  call  upon  us  to  prove  by  miracles,  is  this  : 
"  That  God  is  by  these  teachers,  working  a  great  and  extraordinary 
•  work  in  the  earth." — What  I  mean  by  a  great  and  extraordinary 
work,  is  the  bringing  multitudes  of  gross,  notorious  sinners,  in  a  short 
space,  to  the  fear,  and  love,  and  service  of  God,  to  an  entire  change 
of  heart  and  life. 

Now,  then,  let  us  take  a  nearer  view  of  the  proposition,  and  see 
which  part  of  it  we  are  to  prove  by  miracles. 

Is  it,  1.  That  A.  B.  was  for  many  years  without  God  in  the  world, 
a  common  swearer,  a  drunkard,  or  sabbath  breaker  ] 

Or,  2.  That  he  is  not  so  now  1 

Or,  3.  That  he  continued  so  till  he  heard  this  man  preach,  and 
from  that  time  was  another  man  1 

Not  so.  The  proper  way  to  prove  these  facts,  is  by  the  testimony 
of  competent  witnesses.  And  these  witnesses  are  ready,  whenever 
required,  to  give  full  evidence  of  them. 

Or,  would  you  have  us  prove  by  miracles, 

4.  That  this  was  not  done  by  our  own  power  or  holiness  ? — That 
God  only  is  able  to  raise  the  dead,  to  quicken  those  who  are  dead  in 
trespasses  and  sins  ? 

Where  then  is  the  wisdom  of  those  men  who  demanded  miracles 
in  proof  of  such  a  proposition  ]  One  branch  of  which,  "  That  such 
sinners  are  reformed  by  means  of  these  teachers,"  being  a  plain  fact, 

K2 


102  A   LETTUR   TO   THB 

can  only  be  proved  by  testimony,  as  all  other  facts  are  ;  and  the  other; 
•'  That  this  is  a  loork  of  God,  and  a  more  than  ordinary  work,''^  needy 
no  proof,  as  carrying  its  own  evidence  to  every  thinking  man. 

8.  To  sum  up  this.  No  truly  icise  or  sober  man  can  possibly  de- 
sire or  expect  miracles,  to  prove,  either,  1.  That  these  doctrines  are 
true  :  this  must  be  decided  by  Scripture  and  reason  ;  or,  2.  That 
these  facts  are  true  :  this  can  only  be  proved  by  testimony  :  or,  3j 
That  to  change  sinners  from  darkness  to  light,  is  the  work  of  God 
alone  ;  only  using  what  instruments  he  pleases  :  this  is  glaringly  self- 
evident  :  or,  4.  That  such  a  change  wrought  in  so  many  notorious 
sinners,  within  so  short  a  time  is  a  great  and  extraordinary  work  of 
God.  What  then  is  it  remains  to  be  proved  by  miracles  1  Perhaps 
you  will  say,  it  is  this,  "  That  God  has  called,  or  sent  you  to  do  this." 
Nay,  this  is  implied  in  the  third  of  the  foregoing  propositions.  If  God 
has  actually  used  us  therein,  if  his  work  hath  in  fact  prospered  in  our 
hands,  then  he  hath  called  or  sent  us  to  do  this.  I  entreat  reasonable 
men  to  weigh  this  thoroughly,  whether  the  fact  does  not  plainly 
prove  the  call.  Whether  he  who  thus  enables  us  to  save  souls  ahve, 
does  not  commission  us  so  to  do  ?  Whether  by  giving  us  the  power  to 
pluck  these  brands  out  of  the  burning,  he  does  not  authorize  us  to 
exert  it  *?  O  that  it  were  possible  for  you  to  consider  calmly,  whether 
the  success  of  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  even  as  it  is  preached  by 
us,  the  least  of  his  servants,  be  not  itself  a  miracle,  never  to  be  for- 
gotten !  One  which  cannot  be  denied,  as  being  visible  at  this  day, 
not  in  one,  but  a  hundred  places :  one  which  cannot  be  accounted 
for  by  the  ordinary  course  of  any  natural  causes  whatsoever  :  one 
which  cannot  be  ascribed,  with  any  colour  of  reason,  to  diabolical 
agency  :  and,  lastly,  one  which  will  bear  the  infallible  test,  the  trial 
of  the  written  word.* 

But  "why  do  you  talk  of  the  success  of  the  «;-05pc/ in  England, 
which  was  a  Christian  country  before  you  were  born  V*  Was  it  in- 
deed '?  Is  it  so  at  this  day  1  1  would  explain  myself  a  little  on  this 
head  also. 

And,  1.  None  can  deny  that  the  people  of  England,  in  general;, 
are  called  Christians.  They  are  called  so,  a  few  only  excepted,  by 
others,  as  well  as  themselves.  But  I  presume  no  man  will  say  the 
name  makes  the  thing  ;  that  men  are  Christians,  barely  because  they 
are  called  so.  It  must  be  allowed,  2.  That  the  people  of  England, 
generally  speaking,  have  been  christened,  or  baptized ;  but  neither 
can  we  infer,  "  These  were  once  baptized  ;  therefore  they  are 
Christians  now."  It  is,  3.  Allowed,  That  many  of  those  who  were 
once  bdptized,  and  are  called  Christians  to  this  day,  hear  the  word  oi 
God,  oXtend  public  prayers,  and  partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  But 
neither  does  this  prove,  that  they  are  Christimis.  For  notwith- 
standing this,  some  of  them  live  in  open  sin  :  and  others  (though  not 
conscious  to  themselves  of  hypocrisy,  yet)  are  utter  strangers  to  the 
religion  of  the  heart :  are  full  of  pride,  vanity,  covctousuess,  ambi- 

*  Second  Letter  to  Dr.  Churclu 


BISHOP  OP  GLOUGESTER.  103 

fion  J  of  hatred,  anger,  malice,  or  envy  ;  and  consequently,  are  no 
more  spiritual  Christians  than  the  open  drunkard,  or  common 
swearer. 

Now  these  being  removed,  where  are  the  Christians^  from  whom 
we  may  properly  term  England  a  Christian  country  1  The  men  who 
have  the  mind  which  was  in  Christ,  and  who  icalk  as  he  also  walked  ? 
Whose  inmost  soul  is  renewed  after  the  image  of  God ;  and  who 
are  outwardly  holy,  as  he  who  hath  called  them  is  holy  1  There  are 
doubtless  a  few  such  to  be  found.  To  deny  this,  would  be  "  want 
of  candour."  But  how  few  !  How  thinly  scattered  up  and  down  ! 
And  as  for  a  Christian  visible  church,  or  a  body  of  Christians,  visibly 
united  together,  where  is  this  to  be  seen  1 

Ye  different  sects,  who  all  declare, 
Lo  !  here  is  Christy  or  Christ  is  there, 
Your  stronger  proofs  divinely  give, 
And  jAoM)  me  where  the  Christiana  live  ! 

And  what  use  is  it  of,  what  good  end  does  it  serve,  to  term  Eng- 
land a  Christian  country  ?  Although,  it  is  true,  most  of  the  natives 
are  called  Christians,  have  been  baptized,  frequent  the  ordinances : 
and  although  here  and  there,  a  real  Christian  is  to  be  found,  as  a 
light  shining  in  a  dark  place.  Does  it  do  any  honour  to  our  great 
Master,  among  those  who  are  not  called  by  his  name  1  Does  it  re- 
commend Christianity  to  the  Jeivs,  the  J\Iahoinetans,  or  the  avowed 
Heathens?  Surely  no  one  can  conceive  it  does.  It  only  makes 
Christianity  stink  in  their  nostrils.  Does  it  answer  any  good  end, 
with  regard  to  those  who  are  called  by  this  worthy  name  1  I  fear 
not ;  but  rather  an  exceedingly  bad  one.  For  does  it  not  keep  mul- 
titudes easy  in  their  heathen  practices  1  Does  it  not  make  or  keep 
still  greater  numbers  satisfied  with  their  heathen  tempers  ?  Does  it 
not  directly  tend  to  make  both  the  one  and  the  other  imagine,  that 
they  are  what  indeed  they  are  not?  That  they  are  Christians,  while 
they  are  utterly  without  Christ,  and  without  God  in  the  world  1  To 
close  this  point.  If  men  are  not  Christians,  till  they  are  renewed 
after  the  image  of  Christ,  and  if  the  people  of  England,  in  general, 
are  not  thus  renewed,  why  do  we  term  them  so  ]  '  The  god  of  this 
world  hath  long  blinded  their  hearts.'  Let  us  do  nothing  to  inct-ease 
that  blindness  :  but  rather  to  recover  them  from  that  '  strong  delu- 
sion,' that  they  may  no  longer  believe  a  lie,' 

Let  us  labour  to  convince  all  mankind,  that  to  be  real  Christians 
is,  to  love  the  Lord  our  God  with  all  our  heart,  and  to  serve  him  with 
all  our  strength  ;  to  love  our  neighbour  as  ourselves,  and  therefore 
to  do  unto  every  man,  as  we  would  they  should  do  unto  us.* 

To  change  one  of  these  Heathens  into  a  real  Christian,  and  to 
continue  him  such,  all  the  ordinary  operations  of  the  Holy  Spirit  are 
absolutely  necessary,  "  But  what  are  they  ?"  I  sum  them  up,  (as 
I  did  in  the  Farther  Appeal  to  Men  of  Reason  and  Religion)  in  th& 
words  of  as  learned  and  orthodox  a  divine  as  ever  England  bred^ 

*  Second  Letter  to  Dr.  Church. 


lO-l  A  LETTER  TO  THE 

«  Sanctification  being  opposed  to  our  corruption,  and  answering 
fully  to  the  latitude  thereof,  whatsoever  holiness  and  perfection  are 
wanting  in  our  nature,  must  be  supplied  by  the  Spirit  of  God, 
Wherefore,  we  being  by  nature  totally  void  of  all  saving  truth,  and 
under  an  impossibility  of  knowing  the  will  of  God :  this  '  Spirit 
searcheth  all  things,  yea,  even  the  deep  things  of  God,'  and  revealeth 
them  unto  the  sons  of  men ;  so  that  thereby  the  darkness  of  their 
understanding  is  expelled,  and  they  are  enlightened  with  the  know- 
ledge of  God.  The  same  Spirit  which  revealeth  the  object  of  faith, 
generally,  to  the  universal  church,  doth  also  illuminate  the  under- 
standing of  such  as  believe  ;  that  they  may  receive  the  truth.     For 

*  faith  is  the  gift  of  God,'  not  only  in  the  object,  but  also  in  the  act. 
And  this  gift,  is  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  working  within  us.  And 
as  the  increase  of  perfection,  so  the  original  of  faith  is  from  the 
Spirit  of  God,  by  internal  illumination  of  the  soul.' 

'  The  second  part  of  the  otfice  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  the  renew- 
ing of  man,  in  all  the  parts  and  faculties  of  his  soul.  For  our  na- 
tural corruption  consisting  in  an  aversion  of  our  wills,  and  a  depra- 
vation of  our  affections ;  an  inclination  of  them  to  the  will  of  God 
is  wrought  within  us  by  the  Spirit  of  God. 

*  The  third  part  of  his  office  is,  to  lead,  direct,  and  govern  us,  in 
our  actions  and  conversations.  *lf  we  live  in  the  Spirit,' quickened 
by  his  renovation,  we  must  also  '  walk  in  the  Spirit,'  following  his 
direction,  led  by  his  manuduction.  We  are  also  animated  and  acted 
by  the  Spirit  of  God,  who  giveth  '  both  to  will  and  to  do.' 

"  And  '  as  many  as  are  thus  led  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  are  the  sons 
of  God.'  (Rom.  viii.  14.)  Moreover  that  this  direction  may  prove 
more  effectual,  we  are  guided  in  our  prayers  by  the  same  Spirit : 
according  to  the  promise, '  !  will  pour  upon  the  house  of  David  and 
upon  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  the  Spirit  of  grace  and  suppli- 
cation.' (Zech.  xii.  10.)  Whereas  then,  'this  is  the  confidence  we 
have  in  him,  that  if  we  ask  any  thjng  according  to  his  will,  he  hear- 
eth  us  :'  and  whereas  '  we  know  not  what  we  should  pray  for  as  we 
ought,  the  Spirit  itself  maketh  intercession  for  us  with  groanings  that 
cannot  be  uttered.'  (ver.  26,  27.)  «  And  he  that  searcheth  the  heart 
knoweth  what  is  the  mind  of  the  Spirit,  because  he  maketh  inter- 
cession for  the  saints  according  to  the  will  of  God.'  From  which 
intercession  (made  for  all  true  Christians)  "he  hath  the  name  of  the 
Paraclete  given  him  by  Christ ;  who  said,  '  I  will  pray  the  Father, 
and  he  will  give  you  another  Paraclete.'  (John  xiv.  16.  26.)  For, 
*if  any  man  sin,  we  have  a  Paraclete  with  the  Father,  Jesus  Christ 
the  righteous,'  saith  St.  John,  1  Epist.  ii.  1  :  '  who  maketh  interces- 
sion for  us,'  saith  St.  Paul.  Rom.  viii.  34.  A  Paraclete,  then,  in  the 
notion  of  the  Scriptures,  is  an  intercessor." 

"  It  is  also  the  office  of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  assure  us  of  the  adop- 
tion of  sons,'  to  create  in  us  a  sense  of  the  paternal  love  of  God 
toward  us,  to  give  us  an  earnest  of  our  everlasting  inheritance. 

*  The  love  of  God  is  shed  abroad  in  our  hearts,  by  the  Holy  Ghost 
which  is  given  unto  us.     For  as  many  as  are  led  by  the  Spirit  of 


BISHOP  OF  GLOUCESTEK.  105 

God,  they  are  the  sons  of  God.  And  because  we  are  sons,  God 
hath  sent  forth  the  Spirit  of  his  Son  into  our  hearts,  crying,  Abba„ 
Father.  For  we  have  not  received  the  spirit  of  bondage  again  to 
fear,  but  we  have  received  the  Spirit  of  adoption,  whereby  we  cry, 
Abba,  Father :  the  Spirit  itself  bearing  witness  with  our  spirit,  that 
we  are  the  children  of  God.'  As,  therefore,  we  are  born  again  by 
the  Spirit,  and  receive  from  him  our  regeneration,  so  we  are  also  by 
the  same  Spirit  assured  of  our  adoption.  Because,  being  '  sons,  we 
are  also  heirs,  heirs  of  God,  and  joint  heirs  with  Christ,'  by  the  same 
Spirit  we  have  the  pledge,  or  rather  the  earnest,  of  our  inheritance. 

*  For  he  which  establisheth  us  in  Christ,  and  hath  anointed  us,  is 
God  ;  who  hath  also  sealed  us,  and  hath  given  us  the  earnest  of  his 
Spirit  in  our  hearts ;'  so  '  we  are  sealed  with  that  holy  Spirit  of  pro- 
mise, which  is  the  earnest  of  our  inheritance.'  The  Spirit  of  God, 
as  given  to  us  in  this  life,  is  to  be  looked  upon  as  an  earnest,  being 
part  of  that  reward  which  is  promised,  and,  upon  performance 
of  the  covenant  which  God  hath  made  with  us,  certainly  to  be 
received." 

It  now  rests  with  your  lordship  to  take  your  choice ;  either  to 
condemn  or  acquit  botli :  either  your  lordship  must  condemn  bishop 
Pearson  for  an  enthusiast,  or  you  must  acquit  me  :  for  I  have  his  ex- 
press authority  on  my  side,  concerning  every  text,  which  I  affirm  to 
belong  to  all  Christians. 

But  I  have  greater  authority  than  his,  and  such  as  I  reverence, 
only  less  than  the  oracles  of  God.  I  mean,  that  of  our  own  church. 
I  shall  close  this  head,  by  setting  down  what  occurs  in  her  authentic 
records,  concerning  either  our  receiving  the  Holy  Ghost,  or  his  ordi- 
nary operations  in  all  true  Christians. 

In  her  daily  Service,  she  teacheth  us  all  to  <  beseech  God  to  grant 
us  his  Holy  Spirit,  that  those  things  may  please  him  which  we  do  at 
this  present,  and  that  the  rest  of  our-  life  may  be  pure  and  holy  :'  to 
pray  for  our  '  sovereign  Lord  the  king,'  that  God  would  '  replenish 
him  with  the  grace  of  his  Holy  Spirit ;'  for  all  the  royal  family,  'that 
they  may  be  endued  with  his  Holy  Spirit,  and  enriched  with  his  hea- 
venly grace ;'  for  ail  the  clergy  and  people,  that  he  would  '  send 
down  upon  them  the  healthful  Spirit  of  his  grace  ;'  for  the  '  catholic 
church,'  that  '  it  may  be  guided  and  governed  by  his  good  Spirit ;' 
and  for  all  therein,  who,  at  any  time, '  make  their  common  supplica- 
tionsunto  him,'  that  the  *  fellowship'  or  communication  'of  the  Holy 
Ghost  may  be  with  them  all  evermore.' 

Her  Collects  are  full  of  petitions  to  the  same  effect.  *  Grant 
that  we  may  daily  be  renewed  by  the  Holy  Spirit.'*  '  Grant  that  in 
all  our  sufferings  here,  for  the  testimony  of  thy  truth,  we  may  by 
faith  behold  the  glory  that  shall  be  revealed,  and  being  filled  with  the 
Holy  Ghost,  may  love  and  bless  our  persecutors.'!  '  Send  thy  Holy 
Ghost,  and  pour  into  our  hearts  that  most  excellent  gift  of  charity.'^ 

•  O  Lord,  from  whom  all  good  things  do  come,  grant  to  us,  thy  hum- 

*  Collect  for  Christinas  I>ay.        f  St.  Stephen's  Day.        j  Qinqasiscsinra  Sunday. 


108     .  A   LETTER  TO  THE 

ble  servants,  that  by  thy  holy  inspiration,  we  may  think  those  things 
that  are  good,  and  by  thy  merciful  guidance  may  perform  the  same.'* 
*'  We  beseech  thee,  leave  us  not  comfortless,  but  send  us  the  Holy 
Ghost  to  comfort  us.'f  '  Grant  us  by  the  same  Spirit,  to  have  a  right 
judgment  in  all  things,  and  evermore  to  rejoice  in  his  holy  comfort.'^ 
*  Grant  us,  Lord,  we  beseech  thee,  the  Spirit  to  think  and  do  always 
such  things  as  be  rightful. '§  '  O  God,  forasmuch  as  without  thee 
we  are  not  able  to  please  thee,  mercifully  grant  that  thy  Holy  Spirit 
may  in  all  things  direct  and  rule  our  hearts.' ||  <  Cleanse  the  thoughts 
of  our  hearts  by  the  inspiration  of  thy  Holy  Spirit,  that  we  may 
perfectly  love  thee,  and  worthily  magnify  thy  jioly  name.'^ 

'  Give  thy  Holy  Spirit  to  this  infant,  (or  this  person,)  that  he  may 
be  born  again.' — '  Give  thy  Holy  Spirit  to  these  persons,'  (N.B.  al- 
ready baptized,)  '  that  they  may  continue  thy  servants.' 

'  Almighty  God,  who  hast  vouchsafed  to  regenerate  these  persons 
by  water  and  the  Holy  Ghost : — strengthen  them  with  the  Holy 
Ghost,  the  Comforter,  and  daily  increase  in  them  the  manifold  gifts 
of  thy  grace.'** 

From  these  passages  it  may  sufficiently  ajipear  for  what  purposes 
every  Christian,  according  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land does  now  receive  the  Holy  Ghost.  But  this  will  be  still  more 
clear  from  those  that  follow  ;  wherein  we  may  likewise  observe  a 
plain,  rational  sense  of  God's  revealing  himself  to  us,  of  the  inspira- 
lion  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  of  a  believer's  feeling  m  himself  the 
mighty  working  of  the  Spirit  of  Christ. 

'  God  gave  them  of  old,  grace  to  be  his  children,  as  he  doth  us 
now.  But  now  by  the  coming  of  our  Saviour  Christ,  we  have  re- 
ceived more  abundantly  the  Spirit  of  God  in  our  hearts. 'ff  '  He 
died  to  destroy  the  rule  of  the  Devil  in  us,  and  he  rose  again  to 
send  down  his  Holy  Spirit  to  rule  in  our  hearts.^  '  We  have  the 
Holy  Spirit  in  our  hearts,  as  a  seal  and  pledge  of  our  everlasting 
inheritance. 'II 

'  The  Holy  Ghost  sat  upon  each  of  them,  like  as  it  had  been  clo- 
ven tongues  of  fire,  to  teach,  that  it  is  he  that  giveth  eloquence  and 
utterance  in  preaching  the  gospel,  which  engendereth  a  burning  zeal 
towards  God's  word,  and  giveth  all  men  a  tongue,  yea,  a  fiery  tongue.' 
(N.B.  Whatever  occurs,  in  any  of  the  Journals,  of  God's  giving  me 
utterance,  or  enabling  me  to  speak  icith  power,  cannot  therefore  be 
quoted  as  enthusiasm,  without  wounding  the  church  through  my 
side.)  <  So  that  if  any  man  be  a  dumb  Christian,  not  professing  his 
faith  openly,  he  giveth  men  occasion  to  doubt,  lest  he  have  not  the 
grace  of  the  Holy  Ghost  within  him.'§§ 

'  It  is  the  office  of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  sanctify  ;  which  the  more  it 
is  hid  from  our  understanding,'  (i.  e.  the  particular  manner  of  his 
working,)  the  more  it  ought  to  move  all  men  to  wonder  at  the  secret 

*  Fifth  Sunday  after  Easter.  t  Sunday  after  Ascension-day.  J  Whitsunday. 
§  Ninth  Sunday  after  Trinity.  ||  Nineteenth  Sunday  after  Trinity.  IT  Commu- 
nion Office.  **  Office  of  Confirmation.  tt  Horn,  on  Faith.  1.1  Horn,  on  the 
Eesurrection.        §§  Horn,  on  Wbitsanday,  pact  I. 


I 


BISHOP   OF   GLOUCESTER.  107 

aud  mighty  workings  of  God's  Holy  Spirit,  which  is  within  us.  For 
it  is  the  Holy  Ghost  that  doth  quicken  the  minds  of  men,  stirring  up 
godly  motions  in  their  hearts.  Neither  does  he  think  it  sufficient  m- 
wardly  to  work  the  new-birth  of  men,  unless  he  does  also  dwell  and 
abide  in  them.  *  Know  ye  not,'  saith  St.  Paul,  <  that  ye  are  the  tem- 
ples of  God,  and  that  his  Spirit  dwelleth  in  you  1  Know  ye  not  that 
your  bodies  are  the  temples  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  is  within  you?' 
Again  he  saith,  'Ye  are  not  in  the  flesh,  but  in  the  Spirit.'    For  why  1 

*  The  Spirit  of  God  dwelleth  in  you.'  To  this  agreeth  St.  John,  (1 
John  ii.  27,)  '  The  anointing  which  ye  have  received,'  (he  meaneth 
the  Holy  Ghost,)  'abideth  in  you.'     And  St.  Peter  saith  the  same  ; 

*  The  Spirit  of  glory  and  of  God  resteth  upon  you.'  O  what  com- 
fort is  this  to  the  heart  of  a  true  Christian,  to  think  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  dwelleth  in  him  !     '  If  God  be  with  us,'  as  the  apostle  saith, 

*  who  can  be  against  us  V  He  giveth  patience  and  joyfulness  of 
heart  in  temptation  and  affliction,  and  is  therefore  worthily  called  the 
Comforter.  (John  xiv.  16.)  He  doth  instruct  the  hearts  of  the  sim- 
ple in  the  knowledge  of  God,  and  his  word  ;  therefore  he  is  justlj' 
termed  the  Spirit  of  truth.  And  (N.  B.)  where  the  Holy  Ghost  doth 
instruct  and  teach,  there  is  no  delay  at  all  in  learning.'* 

[From  this  passage,  I  learn,  1 .  That  every  true  Christian  now  re- 
ceives  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  the  Paraclete  or  Co»i/or/er  pro n.ised  by  our 
Lord.  (John  xiv.  13.)  Secondl},  That  every  Christian  receives  him 
as  the  Spirit  of  truth,  (promised  John  xvi.)  to  teach  him  all  things. 
And,  3.  That  the  anointing,  mentioned  in  the  first  epistle  of  St. 
John,  abides  in  every  Christian.^ 

'  In  reading  of  God's  word,  he  profiteth  most  who  is  most  inspired 
with  the  Holy  Ghost.'f 

'  Human  and  worldly  wisdom  is  not  needful  to  the  understanding 
the  Scripture;  but  the  revelation  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  inspireth 
the  true  meaning  unto  them,  who  with  humility  and  diligence,  search 
tor  it.' I 

'  Make  him  know  and  feel,  that  there  is  no  other  name  given  un- 
der heaven,  unto  men,  whereby  we  can  be  saved.  If  we  feel  our 
conscience  at  peace  with  God,  through  remission  of  our  sins — all  is 
of  God.'§  '  If  you  feel  such  a  faith  in  you,  rejoice  in  it,  and  let  it 
be  daily  increasing  by  well- working.' ||  'The  faithful  may  feel 
wrought,  tranquillity  of  conscience,  the  increase  of  faith  and  hope, 
with  many  other  graces  of  God.'^  '  Godly  men  feel  inwardly  God's 
Holy  Spirit  inflaming  their  hearts  with  love.'** 

'  God  give  us  grace  to  know  these  things,  and  feel  them  in  our 
hearts  !  This  knowledge  and  feeling  are  not  of  ourselves.  Let  us, 
therefore,  meekly  call  upon  the  bountiful  Spirit,  the  Holy  Ghost,  to 
inspire  us  with  his  presence,  that  we  may  be  able  to  hear  the  good- 
ness of  God  to  our  salvation.  For  without  his  lively  inspiration,  we 
cannot  so  much  as  speak  the  name  of  the  Mediator.     *  No  man  can 

*  Horn.  OD  Whitsunday.    Part  I.         T  Hom.  on  Reading  the  Scripture.    Fart  I. 

ilbid.    P.  II.        §  Hom.  on  Rogation  Week.    P.  III.  ||  Hom.  on  Faith.    P.  III. 

Horn,  on  the  Sacrament.   P.  I.       **  Hom.  on  certain  places  of  Scripture.    P.  !• 


lt)8  A    LETTER   TO    TUE 

say,  Jesus  is  the  Lord,  but  by  the  Holy  Ghost.'  Much  less  should 
we  be  able  to  believe  and  know  these  great  mysteries  that  be  open- 
ed to  us  by  Christ.  '  But  we  have  received,'  saith  St.  Paul,  '  not 
the  spirit  of  the  world,  bat  the  Spirit  which  is  of  God  :'  for  this  pur- 
pose, *  that  we  may  know  the  things  which  are  freely  given  to  us  of 
God.'  In  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost  resteth  all  ability  to  know 
God,  and  to  please  him.  It  is  he  that  purifieth  the  mind  by  his  secret 
working.  He  enlighteneth  the  heart  to  conceive  worthy  thoughts  of 
Almighty  God.  He  sitteth  on  the  tongue  of  man,  to  stir  him  to 
speak  his  honour.  He  only  ministereth  spiritual  strength  to  the 
powers  of  the  soul  and  body.  And  if  we  have  any  gift  whereby  we 
may  profit  our  neighbour,  all  is  wrought  by  this  one  and  self-same 
Spirit.'* 

Every  proposition  which  I  have  any  where  advanced  concerning 
those  operations  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  I  believe  are  common  to 
all  Christians,  in  all  ages,  is  here  clearly  maintained  by  our  own 
church. 

Being  fully  convinced  of  this,  I  could  not  well  understand,  for 
many  years,  how  it  was,  that  on  the  mentioning  any  of  these  great 
truths,  even  among  men  of  education,  the  cry  immediately  arose, 
"  An  enthusiast  !  an  enthusiast !"  But  I  now  plainly  perceive,  this 
is  only  an  old  fallacy  in  a  new  shape.  To  object  enthusiasm  to  any 
person  or  doctrine,  is  but  a  decent  method  of  begging  the  question. 
It  generally  spares  the  objector  the  trouble  of  reasoning,  and  is  a 
shorter  and  easier  way  of  carrying  his  cause. 

For  instance  :  I  assert,  that  "  till  a  man  receives  the  Holy  Ghost, 
he  is  without  GSod  in  the  world ;  that  he  cannot  know  the  things  of 
God,  unless  C  ^d  reveal  them  unto  him  by  his  Spirit;  no,  nor  have 
even  one  holy  or  heavenly  temper,  without  the  inspiration  of  the 
Holy  One."  Mow  should  one  who  is  conscious  to  himself,  that  he 
has  experience(5  none  of  these  things,  attempt  to  confute  these  pro- 
positions, either  from  Scripture  or  antiquity,  it  might  prove  a  difficult 
task.  What  then  shall  he  do  ?  Why,  cry  out,  "  Enthusiasm  !  Fa- 
naticism !"  and  the  work  is  done. 

"  But  is  it  not  vn'-re  enthusiasm  or  fanaticism  to  talk  of  the  New- 
Birth?"  So  one  might  imagine  from  the  manner  in  which  your 
lordship  talks  of  it.  "  The  Spirit  did  not  stop  till  it  had  manifested 
itself  in  the  last  effort  of  his  power,  the  New-Birth,  (p.  123.)  The 
New-Birth  began  in  storms  and  tempests,  in  cries  and  ecstacies,  in 
tumults  and  confusions,  (p.  126.)  Persons  who  had  no  sense  of 
religion,  that  is,  no  ecstatic  feelings,  or  pains  of  the  New-Birth,  (p, 
180.)  What  can  be  the  issue  of  the  New-Birth,  attended  with  those 
infernal  throes'?  (p.  170.)  Why  should  he  elicit  sense  from  these 
Gentiles,  when  they  were  finally  to  be  deprived  of  it  in  ecstacies  and 
New-Births  1  (p.  225.)  All  these  circumstances  Mr.  W.  has  de. 
dared  to  be  constant  symptoms  of  the  New-Birth."  p.  223, 

•  Horn,  for  Rogation  Weeb.    P.  III. 


BISHOP   OF    GLOUCESTER,  IOC' 

Sso  the  New-Birth  is,  throughout  the  whole  tract,  the  standing  topic 
of  ridicule  ! 

"  No,  not  the  New-Birth  itself,  hut  your  enthusiastic,  ridiculous 
account  of  it."  What  is  then  my  account  of  the  New-Birth  ?  J 
gave  it  some  years  ago,  in  these  words  : 

'  It  is  that  great  change  which  God  works  in  the  soul,  when  he 
brings  it  into  life  :  when  he  raises  it  from  the  death  of  sin  to  the  life 
of  righteousness.  It  is  the  change  wrought  in  the  whole  soul  by  the 
Almighty  Spirit  of  God,  when  it  is  '  created  anew  in  Christ  Jesus,' 
when  it  is  '  renewed  after  the  image  of  God,  in  righteousness  and 
true  holiness  :  when  the  love  of  the  world  is  changed  into  the  love 
of  God,  pride  into  humility,  passion  into  meekness ;  hatred,  env)^ 
malice,  into  a  sincere,  tender,  disinterested  love  to  all  mankind.  In 
a  word,  it  is  that  change  whereby  the  '  earthly,  sensual,  devilish  mind,' 
is  turned  into  '  the  mind  which  was  in  Christ  Jesus.'  '  Vol.  II.  of 
Sermons. 

This  is  my  account  of  the  New-Birth.  What  is  there  ridiculous 
or  enthusiastic  in  it  1 

"  But  what  do  you  mean  by  those  tempests,  and  cries,  and  pains, 
and  infernal  throes  attending  the  New-Birth  ?"  I  will  tell  you  as 
plainly  as  I  can,  in  the  very  same  words  I  used  to  Dr.  Church,  (after 
premising,  that  some  experience  much,  some  very  little  of  these 
pains  and  throes.) 

'  When  men  feel  in  themselves  the  heavy  burthen  of  sin,  see 
damnation  to  be  the  reward  of  it,  behold  with  the  eye  of  their  mind 
the  horror  of  hell,  they  tremble,  they  quake,  and  are  inwardly  touch- 
ed with  sorrowfulness  of  heart,  and  cannot  but  accuse  themselves, 
and  open  their  grief  unto  Almighty  God,  and  call  to  him  for  mercy. 
This  being  done  seriously,  their  mind  is  so  occupied,  partly  with  sor- 
row and  heaviness,  partly  with  an  earnest  desire  to  be  dehvered  from 
this  danger  of  hell  and  damnation,  that  all  desire  of  meat  and  drink 
is  laid  apart,  and  loathing  of  all  worldly  things  and  pleasiu'es  comes 
in  place,  so  that  nothing  then  liketh  them  more  than  to  weep,  to  la- 
ment, to  mourn,  and  both  with  words  and  behaviour  of  body,  so  show 
themselves  weary  of  life.' 

'  Now,  permit  me  to  ask.  What,  if  before  you  had  observed,  that 
these  were  the  very  words  of  our  own  church,  one  of  your  acquaint- 
ance or  parishioners  had  come  and  told  you,  that  ever  since  he 
heard  a  sermon  at  the  Foundry,  he  saw  damnation  before  him,  and 
beheld  with  the  eye  of  his  mind  the  horror  of  hell !  What  if  he  had 
trembled  and  quaked,  and  been  so  taken  up,  <  partly  with  sorrow  and 
heaviness,  partly  with  an  earnest  desire  to  be  delivered  from  the  dan- 
ger of  hell  and  damnation,  as  to  weep,  to  lament,  to  mourn,  and 
both  with  words  and  behaviour,  to  show  himself  weary  of  life  V 
Would  you  have  scrupled  to  say,  "  Here  is  another  deplorable  in- 
stance  of  the  Methodists  driving  men  to  distraction  '?"* 

I  have  now  finished,  as  my  time  permits,  what  I  had  to  say,  either 

*  Second  Letter  to  Dr.  Church. 

Vol.  9._L 


110  A    LETTER    TO    A   QTtaKER, 

concerning  myself,  or  on  the  operations  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  In  doing 
this,  I  have  used  great  plainness  of  speech,  and  yet,  I  hope,  without 
rudeness.  If  any  thing  of  that  kind  has  slipped  from  me,  I  am  ready 
to  retract  it.  I  desire,  on  the  one  hand,  to  '  accept  no  man's  person;' 
and  yet,  on  the  other,  to  give  '  honour  to  whom  honour  is  due.' 

If  your  lordship  should  think  it  worth  your  while  to  spend  any 
more  words  upon  me,  may  I  presume  to  request  one  thing  of  your 
lordship,  to  be  more  serious?  It  cannot  injure  your  lordship's  cha- 
racter, or  your  cause.     Truth  is  great,  and  will  prevail. 

^V^ishing  your  lordship  all  temporal  and  spiritual  blessings,  I  am. 
My  Lord, 

Your  Lordship's  dutiful  Son  and  Servant, 

John  Wesley.. 
Nov.  26.  1762. 


A  LETTER  TO  A  PERSON 

LATELY  JOINED  WITH 

THE  PEOPLE  CALLED  QUAKERS, 

IN  ANSWER  TO  A  LETTER  WRITTEN  BY  HIM. 


Bristol,  Feb.  10,  1747-&. 

YOU  ask  me,  "  Is  there  any  difference  between  Quakerism  and 
Christianity  ?"  I  think  there  is.  What  that  difference  is,  I  will  tell 
you  as  plainly  as  tcan.  I  will  first  set  doAvn  the  account  of  Quaker- 
ism (so  called)  which  is  given  by  Robert  Barclay  :  and  then  add, 
wherein  it  agrees  with,  and  wherein  it  differs  from,  Christianity. 

I,  "  Seeing  the  height  of  all  happiness  is  placed  in  the  true  know- 
ledge of  God,  the  riglit  understanding  of  this  is  what  is  most  neces- 
sary to  be  known  in  the  first  place. 

II.  "  It  is  by  the  Spirit  alone  that  the  true  knowledge  of  God  hath 
been,  is,  and  can  be  revealed.  And  these  revelations,  which  are  ab- 
solutely necessary  for  the  building  up  of  true  faith,  neither  do  nor 
can  ever  contradict  right  reason  or  the  testimony  of  the  Scriptures." 

Thus  far  there  is  no  difference  between  Quakerism  and  Chris- 
tianity. 

"  Yet  these  revelations  are  not  to  be  subjected  to  the  examination 
of  the  Scriptures  as  to  a  touchstone." 

Here  there  is  a  difference.  The  Scriptures  are  the  touchstone 
Avhereby  Christians  examine  all  (real  or  supposed)  revelations.  In 
all  cases  they  appeal  to  the  law  and  to  the  testimony,  and  try  every  spirit 
thereby. 


A    LETTER    TO   A    UUAKER.  Ill 

Hi.  "  From  these  revelations  of  the  Spirit  of  God  to  the  saints, 
iiave  proceeded  the  Scriptures  of  truth." 

In  this  there  is  no  difference  between  Quakerism  and  Christianity. 

'•  Yet  the  Scriptures  are  not  the  principal  ground  oj  all  truth  and 
knowledge,  nor  the  adequate,  primary  rule  of  faith  and  manners. 
Nevertheless  they  are  a  secondary  rule,  subordinate  to  the  Spirit. 
By  him  the  saints  are  led  into  all  truth.  Therefore  the  Spirit  is  the 
first  and  principal  leader." 

If  by  these  words,  "  The  Scriptures  are  not  the  principal  ground 
of  truth  and  knowledge,  nor  tiie  a  i- quale,  primary  rule  of  faith  and 
manners,''''  be  only  meant,  that  "  the  Spirit  is  our  first  and  principal 
Uader.''     Here  is  no  difference  between  Quakerism  and  Christianity. 

But  there  is  great  impropriety  of  expression.  For  though  the  Spi- 
rit is  oViV principal  leader,  yet  he  is  not  our  rule  at  all ;  the  Scriptures 
are  the  rule  whereby  he  leads  us  into  all  truth.  Therefore,  only 
talk  good  English  ;  call  the  Spirit  our  guide,  (which  signifies  an  in- 
telligent being,)  and  the  Scriptures  our  rule,  (which  signifies  some- 
thing used  by  an  intelligent  being,)  and  all  is  plain  and  clear. 

IV.  "  All  mankind  is  fallen  and  dead,  deprived  of  the  sensation  of 
this  inward  testimony  of  God,  and  subject  to  the  power  and  nature 
af  the  Devil,  while  they  abide  in  their  natural  state.  And  hence  not 
■only  their  words  and  deeds,  but  all  their  imaginations  are  evil  perpe- 
tually in  the  sight  af  God." 

V.  "  God  out  of  his  infinite  love  hath  so  loved  the  world,  that  he 
gave  his  only  Son,  to  the  end  that  whosoever  belie veth  on  him,  might 
have  everlasting  life.  And  he  enlighteneth  every  man  that  cometli 
into  the  world,  as  he  tasted  death  for  every  man." 

VI.  "  The  benefit  of  the  death  of  Christ  is  not  only  extended  to 
such  as  have  the  distinct  knowledge  of  his  death  and  sufferings,  but 
even  unto  those  who  are  inevitably  excluded  from  this  knowledge. 
Even  these  may  be  partakers  of  the  benefit  of  his  death,  though  ig- 
norant of  the  history,  if  they  suffer  his  death  to  take  place  in  their 
hearts,  so  as  of  wicked  men  to  become  holy." 

In  these  points  there  is  no  difierence  between  Quakerism  and 
Christianity. 

VII.  "  As  many  as  receive  the  light,  in  them  is  produced  a  holy 
and  spiritual  birth,  bringing  forth  holiness,  righteousness,  purity,  and 
all  other  blessed  fruits.  By  which  holy  birth,  as  we  are  sanctified,  so 
we  are  justified." 

Here  is  a  wide  difference  between  Quakerism  and  Christianity. 
This  is  a  flat  justification  by  works.  Whereas  the  Christian  doctrine 
is.  That  '  we  are  justified  by  faith  :'  that  '  unto  him  that  worketh  not, 
but  believeth  on  him  that  justifieth  the  ungodly,  his  faith  is  counted  to 
him  for  righteousness.' 

The  ground  of  this  mistake  is,  the  not  understanding  the  meaning 
of  the  word  justification.  For  Robert  Barclay  takes  it  in  the  same 
sense  as  the  Papists  do,  confounding  it  with  sanctification.  So  in  the 
208th  page  of  his  Apology,  he  says,  in  express  terms,  "  Justification 
taken  in  its  proper  signification,  is,  making  one  just,  and  is  all  one 
with  sanctification," 


112  A    LETTJSR    TO    A    QUAKEK, 

VIII.  "  In  whom  this  holy  hirth  is  fully  brought  forth,  the  body  o/ 
sin  and  death  is  crucified,  and  their  hearts  are  subjected  to  the  truth, 
so  as  not  to  obey  any  suggestion  of  the  evil  one,  but  to  be  free  from 
actual  sinning  and  transgressing  of  the  law  of  God,  and  in  that  re- 
spect, perfect." 

IX.  "  They  in  whom  his  grace  hath  wrought  in  part  to  purify  and 
sanctify  them,  may  yet  by  disobedience  fall  from  it,  and  make  ship- 
wreck of  the  faith."  In  these  propositions  there  is  no  difference  be- 
tween Quakerism  and  Christianity. 

The  uncommon  expression,  "This  holy  birth  brought  forth,"  is 
faken  from  Jacob  Behnien.  And  indeed  so  are  many  other  expres- 
sions used  by  the  Quakers,  as  are  also  many  of  their  sentiments. 

X.  "  By  this  light  of  God  in  the  heart,  every  true  minister  is  or- 
dained, prepared,  and  supplied  in  the  work  of  the  ministry." 

As  to  part  of  this  proposition,  there  is  no  difference  between  Qua- 
kerism and  Christianity.  Doubtless  "  every  true  minister  is  by  the 
light  of  God  prepared  and  siipplied  in  tlie  work  of  the  ministry.'' 
But  the  Apostles  themselves  ordained  them  by  'laying  on  of  hands." 
So  we  read  throughout  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 

"  They  who  have  received  this  gift,  ought  not  to  use  it  as  a  trade, 
to  get  money  thereby.  Yet  it  may  be  lawful  for  such  to  receive  whai 
njay  be  needful  to  them  for  food  and  clothing." 

In  this  there  is  no  difference  between  Quakerism  and  Christianity. 

"  We  judge  it  no  ways  unlawful,  for  a  woman  to  preach  in  the  as- 
semblies of  God's  people." 

In  this  there  is  a  manifest  difference.  For  the  Apostle  Paul  saith 
expressly.  '  Let  your  women,  keep  silence  in  the  churches :  for  it  is  not 
permitted  unto  them  to  speak. — And  if  they  will  learn  any  thing,  let 
ihem  ask  their  husbands  at  home :  for  it  is  a  shame  for  women  to 
speak  in  the  church.'  1  Cor.  xiv.  34,  35. 

Robert  Barclay  indeed  says,  'Paul  here  only  reproves  the  incon- 
siderate and  talkative  women.'  But  the  text  says  no  such  thing.  It 
evidently  speaks  of  women  in  general.  Again,  the  Apostle  Paul  saitli 
to  Timothy,  '  Let  your  women  learn  in  silence  with  all  subjection. 
For  I  suffer  not  a  woman  to  teach,  nor  to  usurp  authority  over  the 
man,  (which  public  teaching  necessarily  implies,)  but  to  be  in  silence." 
(1  Tim.  ii.  11,  12.)  To  this  Robert  Barclay  makes  only  that  harm- 
less reply  ;  '  We  think  this  is  not  any  ways  repugnant  to  this  doc- 
trine.' Not  repugnant  to  this,  '  I  do  not  suffer  a  woman  to  teach?" 
Then  I  know  not  what  is. 

"  But  a  woman  'laboured  with  Paul  in  the  work  of  the  gospel.'  " 
iea!  but  not  in  the  way  he  had  himself  expressly  forbidden. 

"  But  Joel  foretold,  '  Your  sons  and  your  daughters  shall  prophe- 
sy.' And  '  Philip  had  four  daughters  which  prophesied.'  And  the 
Apostle  himself  directs  women  to  prophesy ;  only  with  their  '  heads 
covered.' "  Very  good.  But  how  do  you  prove  that  prophesying 
in  any  of  these  places  means  preaching  ? 

XI.  '•  All  true  worship  to  God  is  offered  in  the  inward  and  imme- 
diate moving  of  his  own  Spirit.  We  ought  not  to  pray  or  preach 
where  and  when  we  will,  but  where  and  when  we  are  moved  thereto 


A   LETTfiE   TO   A   QTJAKEB.  Hj 

fey  his  Spirit.  All  other  worship,  both  praises,  prayers,  and  preach- 
ings,  which  man  sets  about  in  his  own  will,  and  at  his  own  appoint- 
ment, which  he  can  begin  and  end  at  pleasure,  do,  or  leave  undone, 
as  himself  sees  meet,  are  but  superstitions,  will-worship,  and  abomi' 
iiable  idolatries." 

Here  lies  one  of  the  main  differences  between  Quakerism  and 
Christianity.  It  is  true  indeed,  that  "  all  true  worship  to  God  is 
offered  in  the  inward  and  immediate  moving  of  his  own  Spirit :"  or, 
(to  speak  plainly,)  that  we  cannot  truly  worship  God,  unless  his  Spi- 
rit move  or  incline  our  hearts.  It  is  equally  true,  that  "  we  ought  to 
pray  and  preach,  only  where  and  when  we  are  moved  thereto  by  his 
Spirit."  But  I  fear  you  do  not  in  any  wise  understand,  what  the  being 
moved  by  his  Spirit  means.  God  moves  man  whom  he  has  made  a 
reasonable  creature,  according  to  the  reason  which  he  has  given  him. 
He  moves  him  by  his  understanding,  as  well  as  his  affections,  by  light 
as  well  as  by  heat.  He  moves  him  to  do  this  or  that  by  conviction, 
full  as  often  as  by  desire.  Accordingly,  you  are  as  really  moved  by 
the  Spirit  when  he  convinces  you,  you  ought  to  feed  him  that  is  hun- 
gry, as  when  he  gives  you  ever  so  strong  an  impulse,  desire,  or  in- 
clination so  to  do. 

In  like  manner,  you  are  as  really  moved  by  the  Spirit  to  pray, 
whether  it  be  in  public  or  private,  when  you  have  a  conviction  it  is 
the  will  of  God  you  should,  as  when  you  have  the  strongest  im- 
pulse upon  your  heart.  And  he  does  truly  move  you  to  preach,  when 
in  his  light  you  see  light  clearly  satisfying  you  it  is  his  will ;  as  much 
as  when  you  feel  tlie  most  vehement  impulse  or  desire  to  '  hold  forth 
the  words  of  eternal  life.' 

Now  let  us  consider  the  main  proposition.  "  All  worship  which 
man  sets  about  in  his  own  will,  and  at  his  own  appointment." — Hold ! 
That  is  quite  another  thing.  It  may  be  at  his  own  appointment,  and 
yet  not  in  liis  own  will.  For  instance ;  it  is  not  mj  own  will  to 
preach  at  all.  It  is  quite  contrary  to  my  will.  Many  a  time  have  I 
cried  out,  '  Lord,  send  by  whom  thou  wilt  send.  Only  send  not  me !' 
But  I  am  moved  by  the  Spirit  of  God  to  preach :  he  clearly  sliow$ 
me  it  is  his  will  i  should  ;  and  that  I  should  do  it  ichen  and  where  the 
greatest  number  of  poor  sinners  may  be  gathered  together.  Moved 
by  him,  I  give  up  my  will,  and  appoint  a  time  and  place,  when  by  his 
power  I  trust  to  speak  in  his  name. 

How  widely  different,  then,  from  true  Christianity,  is  that  amazing 
sentence,  "  All  praises,  prayers,  and  preachings,  which  man  can  be- 
gin and  end  at  his  pleasure,  do,  or  leave  undone,  as  himself  sees  meet, 
are  superstition,  will-worship,  and  abominable  idolatry,  in  the  siglit 
of  God !" 

There  is  not  one  tittle  of  Scripture  for  this  ;  nor  yet  is  there  any 
5ound  reason.  When  you  take  it  for  granted,  "In  all  preachings 
^vhich  a  man  begins  or  ends  at  his  pleasure,  does,  or  leaves  undone, 
as  he  sejes  meet,"  he  is  not  moved  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  you  are  too 
hasty  a  great  deal.  It  may  be  by  the  Spirit,  that  he  sees  meet  to  do, 
or  leave  it  undone.  How  will  you  prove  that  it  is  not?  His  plea- 
sure may  depend  o)i  the  pleasure  of  God,  signified  to  him  by  his  Spi* 

L2 


U  4  A   LETTER   TO   A   QUAKER. 

rit.  His  appointing  this  or  that  time  or  place,  does  in  nowise  prove- 
(he  contrary.  Prove  me  the  proposition  if  you  can,  "  £very  man 
^vho  preaches  or  prays  at  an  appointed  time,  preaches  or  prays  in  his 
own  will,  and  not  by  the  Spirit." 

That  all  such  preaching  is  will-worship,  in  the  sense  St.  Paul  uses- 
the  word,  is  no  more  true  than  that  it  is  murder.  That  it  is  supersti- 
tion, remains  also  to  be  proved.  That  it  is  "  abominable  idolatry," 
how  will  you  reconcile  with  what  follows  but  a  few  lines  after  ? 
"  However  it  might  please  God,  who  winked  at  the  times  of  igno- 
rance, to  raise  some  breathings  and  answer  them."  What !  Answer 
the  breathings  of  abominable  idolatry !  I  observe  how  warily  this  is 
worded.  But  it  allows  enough.  If  God  ever  raised  and  answered 
those  prayers,  which  were  made  at  set  times,  then  those  prayers  could 
not  be  "  abominable  idolatry." 

Again,  that  prayers  and  preachings,  though  made  at  appointed 
iimes,  may  yet  proceed  from  the  Spirit  of  God,  may  be  clearly  proved 
from  those  other  words  of  Robert  Barclay  himself,  p.  389 

"  That  preaching,  (or  prayer,)  which  is  not  done  by  the  actings 
and  movings  of  God's  Spirit,  cannot  beget  faith."  Most  true.  But 
preaching  and  prayer  at  appointed  times,  have  begoiten  faith  both  at 
Bristol  and  Paulton.  (You  know  well.)  Therefore  that  preaching 
and  prayer,  though  at  appointed  times,  was  "done  by  the  actings  and 
movings  of  God's  Spirit." 

It  follows,  that  this  preaching  and  prayer,  were  far  from  "  abomi- 
nable idolatry."  That  expression  can  never  be  defended.  Say,  h 
was  a  rash  word,  and  give  it  up. 

In  truth,  from  the  beginning  to  the  end,  you  set  this  matter  upon  h 
vvrong  foundation.  It  is  not  on  this  circumstance,  "  The  being  at  set 
dmes  or  not  that  the  acceptableness  of  our  prayers  depends :  but  on 
the  intention  and  tempers  with  which  we  pray."  He  that  prays  in 
faith,  at  whatsoever  time,  is  heard.  In  every  time  and  place,  God 
accepts  him  who  '  lifts  up  holy  hands,  without  wrath  or  doubting.' 
The  charge  of  superstition,  therefore,  returns  upon  yourself.  For 
what  gross  superstition  is  this  to  lay  so  much  stress  on  an  indifferent 
circumstance,  and  so.  little  on  faith  and  the  love  of  God  ! 

But  to  proceed.  "  We  confess  singing  of  psalms,  to  be  a  part  ol 
God's  worship,  and  very  sweet  and  refreshful,, when  it  proceeds  from 
a  true  sense  of  God's  love.  But  as  for  formal  singing,  it  has  no  foun- 
dation in  Scripture." 

In  this  there  is  no  difference  between  Quakerism  and  Christianity/ 

But  let  it  be  observed  here,  that  the  Quakers  in  general  cannot  be 
excused  if  this  be  true.  For  if  they  "  confess  singing  of  psalms  to 
be  a  part  of  God's  worship,"  how  dare  they  either  condemn  or 
neglect  it ! 

"  Silence  is  a  principal  part  of  God's  worship  :  i.  e.  men's  '  sitting- 
silent  together,  ceasing  from  all  outwards,  from  their  own  words,  and 
actings,  in  the  natural  will  and  comprehension,  and  feeling  after  the 
inward  seed  of  life.'  " 

In  this  there  is  a  manifest  difference  between  Quakerism  and 
Cbjcistianity,. 


A   LETTER   TO  A   QUAKER  lla 

This  is  will-worship,  if  there  be  any  such  thing  under  heaven=  For 
ihere  is  neither  conimand,  nor  example  for  it  in  Scripture.  Robert 
Barclay  indeed  refers  to  abundance  of  scriptures,  to  prove  it  is  a 
i'ommand.  But  as  he  did  not  see  good  to  set  them  down  at  length,  I 
will  take  the  trouble  to  transcribe  a  few  of  them. 

'  Wait  on  the  Lord :  be  of  good  courage,  and  he  shall  strengthen 
thine  heart.'  Psalm  xxvii.  14.  '  Rest  in  the  Lord  and  wait  patiently  t 
fret  not  thyself  at  him  who  prospereth  in  his  way.'  Psalm  xxxvii.  7. 
'  Wait  on  the  Lord  and  keep  his  way,  and  he  shall  exalt  thee  to  in- 
herit the  land.'  ver.  34.  '  Say  not  thou,  I  will  recompense  evil ;  bu< 
wait  on  the  Lord  and  he  shall  save  thee.'  Prov.  xx.  23. 

By  these  one  may  judge  of  the  rest.  But  how  amazing  is  this? 
What  are  all  these  to  the  point  in  question  ? 

For  examples  of  silent  meetings  he  refers  to  the  five  texts  following ; 

'  They  were  all  with  one  accord  in  one  place.'  Acts  ii.  L  '  S© 
they  sat  down  with  him  seven  days  and  seven  nights,  and  none  spake 
a  word  unto  him :  for  they  saw  that  his  grief  was  very  great.'  Job 
ii.  13.  '  Then  were  assembled  unto  me  every  one  that  trembled  at 
the  words  of  God — And  I  sat  astonied  until  the  evening  sacrifice.' 
Ezra  ix.  4.  '  Then  came  certain  of  the  elders  of  Israel  unto  me, 
and  sat  before  me.'  Ezek.  xiv.  1,  and  xxiii. 

Was  it  possible  for  Robert  Barclay  to  believe,  that  any  one  of  these 
texts  was  any  thing  to  the  purpose  ?  The  odd  expressions  here  also, 
"  Ceasing  from  all  outwards,  in  the  natural  will  and  comprehension," 
and  "  feeling  after  the  inward  seed  of  life,"  are  borrowed  from 
Jacob  Behmen. 

XII.  "As  there  is  one  Lord  and  one  faith,  so  there  is  one  bap- 
tism." Yea,  one  outward  baptism  :  which  you  deny  Here,  there- 
fore, is  another  difference  between  Quakerism  and  Christianity.. 

But  "  if  those  whom  John  baptized  with  water,  were  not  baptized 
with  the  baptism  of  Christ,  then  the  baptism  of  water,  is  not  the  bap- 
tism of  Christ." — This  is  a  mere  quibble.  The  sequel  ought  to  be. 
•'  Then  thai  baptism  of  water,  (i.  e.  John's  baptism,)  was  not  the 
baptism  of  Christ."     Who  says  it  was  ? 

Yet  Robert  Barclay  is  so  fond  of  this  argument  that  he  repeats  it 
almost  in  the  same  words.  "  If  John  who  administered  the  baptism 
of  water,  yet  did  not  baptize  with  the  baptism  of  Christ,  then  the 
baptism  of  water  is  not  the  baptism  of  Christ."  This  is  the  same 
fallacy  still.  The  sequel  here  also  should  be,  "  Then  that  baptism 
of  water  was  not  the  baptism  of  Christ." 

He  repeats  it,  with  a  little  variation,  a  third  time,  "  Christ  himself 
saith,  '  John  baptized  with  water,  but  ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the 
Holy  Ghost.' "  He  repeats  it  a  fourth  time  :  "  Peter  saith,  '  Then  re- 
membered I  the  word  of  the  Lord,  Jolin  baptized  with  water,  but 
ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost.'  From  all  which  it  fol- 
lows, that  such  as  John  baptized  with  water,  yet  were  not  baptized 
with  the  baptism  of  Christ."  Very  true.  But  this  proves  neither 
more  nor  less  than  that  the  baptism  of  John  diflfered  from  the  baptism 
of  Christ.  And  so  doubtless  it  did ;  not  indeed  as  to  the  '  outward 
sign,'  but  as  to  the  inward  grace. 


tr'C  A-  LETTER   TO   A   QUAKEI?. 

XIII.  "The  breaking  of  bread  Ijy  Christ  with  his  disciples  wa? 
but  a  figure,  and  ceases  in  such  as  have  obtained  the  substance." 
Here  is  another  manifest  difference  between  Quakerism  and  Chris 
lianity.  From  the  very  time  that  our  Lord  gave  that  command,  '  Do 
this  in  remembrance  of  me,'  all  Christians  throughout  the  habitable 
'vvorld,  did  '  eat  bread  and  drink  wine  in  remembrance  of  him.' 

Allowing,  therefore,  all  that  Robert  Barclay  affirms,  for  eighteen 
or  twenty  pages  together,  viz.  1 .  That  believers  partake  of  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ  in  a  spiritual  manner ;  2.  That  this  may  be  done, 
in  some  sense,  when  we  are  not  eating  bread  and  drinking  wine  ;  3. 
That  the  Lutherans,  Calviiiists,  and  Papists,  differ  from  each  other 
with  regard  to  the  Lord's  Supper  ;  and,  4.  That  many  of  them  have 
spoken  wildly  and  absurdly  concerning  it :  yet  all  this  will  never 
prove,  that  we  need  not  do,  what  Christ  has  expressly  commanded 
to  be  done  ;  and  what  the  whole  body  of  Christians  in  all  ages  have 
done,  in  obedience  to  that  command. 

That  there  was  such  a  command,  you  cannot  deny.  But  you  say. 
"  It  is  ceased  in  such  as  have  obtained  the  substance." 

St.  Paul  knew  nothing  of  this.  He  says  nothing  of  its  ceasing,  in 
all  he  writes  of  it  to  the  Corinthians.  Nay,  quite  the  contrary.  •'  He 
says,  '  As  often  as  ye  eat  this  bread  and  drink  this  cup,  ye  do  show 
the  Lord's  deatli  till  he  come.'  "  O,"  say  you,  "  the  Apostle  meane 
his  inward  coming,  which  some  of  the  Corinthians  had  not  yet 
known."  Nay,  this  cannot  be  his  meaning.  For  he  sahh  to  all  the 
Corinthian  communicants,  'Ye  do  show  the  Lord's  death,  till  he 
eome.'  Now  if  he  was  not  come  (spiritually)  in  some  of  these,  un- 
doubtedly he  was  in  others.  Consequently  he  cannot  be  speaking* 
here  of  that  coming,  which  in  many  of  them,  at  least,  was  already 
past.  It  remains,  that  he  speaks  of  his  coming  in  the  clouds,  to  judge 
both  the  quick  and  dead. 

In  what  Robert  Barclay  teaches  concerning  the  Scriptures,  Justi- 
fication, Baptism,  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  lies  the  main  difference  be- 
tween Quakerism  and  Christianity. 

XIV.  "  Since  God  hath  assumed  to  himself  the  dominion  of  the 
conscience,  who  alone  can  rightly  instruct  and  govern  it,  therefore  it 
is  not  lawful  for  any  whatsoever,  to  force  the  cohsciences  of  others." 
In  this  there  is  no  difference  at  all  between  Quakerism  and  Chris- 
tianity. 

XV.  "  It  is  not  lawful  for  Christians  to  give  or  receive  titles  of 
honour,  as,  your  majesty,  your  lordship,  &c." — In  this  there  is  a  dif- 
ference between  Quakerism  and  Christianity.  Christians  may  give 
dtles  of  honour,  such  as  are  usually  annexed  to  certain  offices.  Thus 
St.  Paul  gives  the  usual  title  of  most  noble  to  the  Roman  governor. 
Robert  Barclay  indeed  says,  "  he  would  not  have  called  him  such,  if 
he  had  not  been  truly  noi'le  :  as  indeed  he  was,  in  that  he  would  not 
give  way  to  the  fury  of  the  Jews  against  him." 

The  Scripture  says  quite  other\vise :  that  he  did  give  Avay  to  the 
fury  of  the  Jews  against  him.  I  read,  '  Festus  willing  to  do  the 
Jews  a  pleasure,'  (who  had  '  desired  a  favour  against  him,  that  he 
would  send  for  him  to  Jerusalem,  Iving  in  wait  in  the  way  to  kill  him,') 


A   LETTER    TO   A    QUAKER.  117 

''  said  to  Paul,  Wilt  thou  go  up  to  Jerusalem,  and  there  be  judged  ol 
these  things  before  me?  Then  said  Paul,  i  stand  at  Caesar's  judg- 
ment seat,  where  I  ought  to  be  judged :  to  the  Jews  have  I  done  no 
\vrong,  as  thou  very  well  knowest.  If  I  have  done  any  thing  worth} 
of  death,  I  refuse  not  to  die  ;  but  if  there  be  none  of  these  things 
^vhereof  these  accuse  me,  no  man  may  deliver  me  unto  them.' 

Hence  it  plainly  appears,  that  Festus  was  a  very  wicked  person, 
one  Avho  to  '  do  the  Jews  a  pleasure,'  would  have  betrayed  the  inno- 
cent blood.  But  although  St.  Paul  was  not  ignorant  of  his  charac- 
ter, still  he  calls  him  most  noble  Festus,  giving  him  the  title  of  his 
office ;  which  indeed  was  neither  more  nor  less  than  saying,  "  Go- 
vernor Festus,"  or  "  K  ing  Agrippa." 

It  is  therefore  mere  superstition  to  scruple  this.  And  it  is,  if  possi- 
ble, greater  superstition  still,  to  scruple  saying.  You,  Vous,  or  Ilir. 
whether  to  one  or  more  persons,  as  is  the  common  way  of  speaking 
in  any  country.  It  is  this  which  fixes  the  language  of  every  nation. 
It  is  this  which  makes  me  say  you  in  England,  vous  in  France,  and 
ihr  in  Germany,  rather  than  tliou,  tu,  or  du,  rather  than  St;,  Ss,  or  pN. 
(which  if  we  speak  strictly,  is  the  only  scriptural  language  ;  npt  thou 
or  thee  any  more  than  you.)  But  the  placing  religion  in  such  things 
as  these,  is  such  egregious  trifling,  as  naturally  tends  to  make  all  reli 
gion  slink  in  the  nostrils  of  Infidels  and  Heathens. 

And  yet  this,  by  a  far  greater  abuse  of  words  than  that  you  would 
reform,  you  call  "  the  plain  language."  O  my  friend  !  He  uses  the 
plain  language,  who  speaks  the  truth  from  his  heart.  Not  he  who 
says  thee  or  thou,  and  at  the  mean  time  will  dissemble  or  flatter,  like 
the  rest  of  the  world. 

"  It  is  not  lawful  for  Christians  to  kneel  or  bow  the  body,  or  un- 
cover the  head  to  any  man."  If  this  is  not  lawful,  then  some  law  of 
God  forbids  it.  Can  you  show  me  that  law?  If  you  cannot,  then 
the  scrupling  this  is  another  plain  instance  of  supersthion,  not  Chris 
tianity. 

"  It  is  not  lawful  for  a  Christian  to  use  superfluities  in  apparel :  as 
neither,  to  use  .such  games,  sports,  and  plays,  under  the  notion  of  re 
creations,  as  are  not  consistent  with  gravity  and  godly  fear."  As  to 
both  these  propositions,  there  is  no  difference  between  Quakerism  and 
Christianity.  Only  observe,  touching  the  former,  that  the  sin  of 
"  superfluous  apparel."  lies  chiefly  in  the  superfluous  expense.  To 
make  it  therefore  a  point  of  conscience,  to  differ  from  others,  as  to 
the  shape  or  colour  of  your  apparel,  is  mere  supersthion  :  let  the  dif- 
ference lie  in  the  price,  that  you  may  have  the  more  wherewith  to 
clothe  them  that  have  none. 

"  k  is  not  lawful  for  Christians  to  swear  before  a  magistrate,  nor  to 
fight  in  any  cause."  Whatever  becomes  of  the  latter  proposhion,  the 
former  is  no  part  of  Christianity  :  for  Christ  himself  answered  upon 
oath  before  a  magistrate.  Yea,  he  ivould  not  answer  till  he  was  put 
lo  his  oath ;  till  the  high  priest  said  unto  him,  '  I  adjure  thee  by  the 
living  God.' 

Friend,  you  have  an  honest  heart,  but  a  weak  head  :  you  have  a 
zeal,  but  not  according  to  knowledge.     You  were  zealous  once  foi 


TIO  A    LETTER    TO    THE    REV.  MR.  LAV\  . 

the  love  of  God  and  man  ;  for  holiness  of  heart  and  holiness  of  lite- 
You  are  now  zealous  for  particular  forms  of  speaknig,  for  a  set  of 
phrases  and  opinions.  Once  your  zeal  was  against  ungodliness  and 
unrighteousness,  against  evil  tempers  and  evil  works.  Now  it  i& 
against  forms  of  prayer,  against  singing  psalms  or  hymns,  against  ap- 
pointing times  of  praying  or  preaching  ;  against  saying  you  to  a  single 
person,  uncovering  your  head,  or  having  too  many  buttons  on  your 
coat.  O  what  a  fall  is  here !  What  poor  trifles  are  these,  that  now 
well  nigh  engross  your  thoughts!  Comeback,  come  back,  to  the 
weightier  matters  of  the  law,  spiritual,  rational,  scriptural  religion, 
No  longer  waste  your  time  and  strength  in  beating  the  air,  in  vain 
controversies  and  strife  of  words :  but  bend  your  whole  soul  to  the 
growing  in  grace  and  in  the  knowledge  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  to 
the  continually  advancing  in  that  holiness,  without  which  you  cannot 
■*ee  the  Lord. 


AN  EXTRACT  OF  A  LETTER 

TO  THE 

REV.  MR.  LAW ; 

OCCASIONED  BY  SOME  OF  HIS  LATE  WRITINGS. 


Eev.  Sir, 

IN  matters  of  religion  I  regard  no  writings  but  the  inspired.  Tau- 
ler,  Behmen,  and  a  whole  army  of  mystic  authors  are  with  me  no- 
thing to  St.  Paul.  In  every  point  I  appeal  '  to  the  Law  and  the 
Testimony,'  and  value  no  authority  but  this.  At  a  time  when  I  was 
in  great  danger  of  not  valuing  this  authority  enough,  you  made  that 
important  observation,  "  I  see  where  your  mistake  lies.  You  would 
liave  a  philosophical  religion  ;  but  there  can  be  no  such  thing.  Re- 
ligion is  the  most  plain,  simple  thing  in  the  world.  It  is  only,  '  We 
love  him,  because  he  first  loved  us.'  So  far  as  you  add  philosophy  to 
religion,  just  so  far  you  spoil  it."  This  remark  I  have  never  forgot- 
ten since.     And  I  trust  in  God  I  never  shall. 

But  have  not  you  ?  Permit  me,  Sir,  to  speak  plainly.  Have  you 
ever  thought  of  it  since  ?  Is  there  a  writer  in  England  who  so.con- 
finually  blends  philosophy  whh  religion  ?  Even  in  tracts  on  The 
Spirit  of  Prayer,  and  The  Spirit  of  Love,  wherein,  from  the  titles  of 
them,  one  would  expect  to  find  no  more  of  philosophy,  than  in  the 
epistles  of  St.  John.  Concerning  which,  give  me  leave  to  observe 
in  general,  L  That  the  whole  of  it  is  utterly  superfluous  :  a  man  may 
be  full  both  of  prayer  and  love,  and  not  know  a  word  of  this  hypo- 
thesis; 2.  The  whole  of  this  hypothesis  is  unproved;  it  is  all  pre- 


A  LETTER   TO   THE   REV.  HR.  LAAV.  1  If> 

■carious,  all  uncertain  :  3.  The  whole  hypothesis  has  a  dangerous  ten- 
dency. It  naturally  leads  men  off  from  plain  practical  religion,  and 
fills  them  with  the  knowledge  that  puft'eth  up,  instead  of  the  love  that 
edifieth  ;  and,  4.  It  is  often  flatly  contradictory  to  Scripture,  to  reason, 
and  to  itself 

But  over  and  above  this  superfluous,  uncertain,  dangerous,  irra- 
tional, and  unscriptural  philosophy,  have  not  you  lately  grieved  many 
who  are  not  strangers  to  the  spirit  of  prayer  or  love,  by  advancing 
tenets  in  religion,  some  of  which  they  think  are  unsupported  by  Scrip- 
ture, some  even  repugnant  to  it  ?  Allow  me,  Sir,  first  to  touch  upon 
your  philosophy,  and  then  to  speak  freely  concerning  these. 

I.  As  to  your  philosophy,  the  main  of  3'our  theory  respects,  1. 
Things  antecedent  to  the  creation  ;  2.  The  creation  itself;  3.  Adam 
in  Paradise  ;  4.  The  fall  of  man. 

I  do  not  undertake  formally  to  refute  what  you  have  asserted  on 
any  of  these  heads.  I  dare  not :  I  cannot  answer  either  to  God  or 
man  such  an  employment  of  my  time.  1  shall  only  give  a  sketch  of 
this  strange  system,  and  ask  a  few  obvious  questions. 

And,  1.  Of  the  things  antecedent  to  the  creation. 

*  "  All  that  can  be  conceived  is  God,  or  nature,  or  creature."! 

Is  nature  created,  or  not  created  1  It  must  be  one  or  the  other: 
for  there  is  no  medium.  If  not  created,  is  it  not  God  ?  If  created, 
is  it  not  a  creature  ?  How  then  can  there  be  three,  God,  nature, 
and  creature  ?  Since  nature  nmst  coincide  either  with  God  or  crea- 
ture. 

"  Nature  is  in  itself  a  hungry,  wrathful  fire  #f  life."| — "  Nature  is 
and  can  be  only  a  desire.  Desire  is  the  very  being  of  nature. "§ 
•'  Nature  is  only  a  desire,  because  it  is  for  the  sake  of  something  else. 
Nature  is  only  a  torment ;  because  it  cannot  help  itself  to  that  which 
it  wants.''j|  "  Nature  is  the  outward  manifestation  of  the  invisible 
glories  of  God."^ 

Is  not  the  last  of  these  definitions  contradictory  to  all  that  precede? 
— If  desire  is  the  very  being  of  nature  ;  if  it  is  a  torment,  a  hungry 
wrathful  fire:  how  is  it  "the  outward  manifestation  of  the  invisible 
glories  of  God  ?"  "  Nature  as  well  as  God  is  antecedent  to  all  crea- 
tures."** "  There  is  an  eternal  nature,  as  universal  and  as  unlimited 
as  God."tt  Is  then  nature  God  ?  Or  are  there  two  eternal,  univer- 
sal, infinite  beings  ? 

"  Nothing  is  before  eternal  nature  but  God."J|  "  Nothing  but  ?" 
Is  any  thing  before  that  which  is  eternal  1 — But  how  is  this  grand  ac- 
count of  nature  consistent  with  what  you  say  elsewhere  ? 

"  Nature,  and  darkness,  and  self,  are  but  three  different  expressions 
for  one  and  the  same  thing."§^  "  Nature  has  all  evil  and  no  evil  in 
it."  Yea,  II II  "  Natiire,  self,  or  darkness,  has  not  only  no  evil  in  it, 
but  is  the  only  ground  of  all  good."     O  rare  darkness  ! 

"  Nature  has  seven  chief  properties,  and  can  have  neither  more  r\QV 

*  Mr.  Law's  words  are  enclosed  all  along  in  inverted  commas. 

t  Spirit  of  Prayer,  P.  II.  p.  33.  tlbid.  p.  34,  §  Sp.  of  Love,  P.  I.  p.  20.  ||  P.  34. 
^r.  II.  P..62.     **P.  59.     ttP.  64.     tUbid.     §§  P.  181.     II 11  P.  192. 


120  A  LETTER   TO  THE   REV.  MR.  LAW. 

less,  because  it  is  a  birth  from  the  Deity  in  nature."  (Is  nature  a 
birth  from  the  Deity  in  nature  ?  Is  this  sense  ?  If  it  be,  what  kind 
of  proof  is  it  ?  Is  it  not  ignotum  per  ce,que  ignotum  ?)  "  For  God  is 
tri-une  and  nature  is  tri-une."  ("  Nature  is  tri-une."  Is  not  this  flat 
begging  the  question  ?)  "  And  hence  arise  properties,  three  and 
three."  (Nay,  why  not  nine  and  nine  ?)  '*  And  that  which  brings 
these  three  and  three  into  union  is  another  property."*  Why  so? 
Why  may  it  not  be  two,  or  five,  or  nine  ?  Is  it  not  rather  the  will 
and  power  of  God  ? 

"  The  three  first  properties  of  nature  are  the  whole  essence  of  that 
desire,  which  is,  and  is  called  nature."  (p.  69.)  How  ?  Are  the 
properties  of  a  thing  the  same  as  the  essence  of  it  ?  What  confusion 
is  this !  But  if  they  were,  can  a  part  of  its  properties  be  the  whole 
essence  of  it  ? 

"  The  three  first  properties  of  nature  are  attraction,  resistance,  and 
whirling.  In  these  three  properties  of  the  desire,  you  see  the  reason 
of  the  three  great  laws  of  matter  and  motion,  and  need  not  be  told, 
that  Sir  Isaac  ploughed  with  Jacob  Behmen^'s  heifer."  (p.  37.)  Just 
as  much  as  Milton  ploughed  with  Francis  Quarles's  heifier. 

How  does  it  appear,  that  these  are  any  of  the  properties  of  nature  1 
If  you  mean  by  nature  any  thing  distinct  from  matter?  And  how 
are  they  the  properties  of  desire  ?  What  a  jumbling  of  dissonant  no- 
tions is  here ! 

"  The  fourth  property,"  (you  affirm,  not  prove,)  "is  called  fire  : 
the  fifth  the  form  of  light  and  love."  (What  do  you  mean  by  the 
form  of  love  %  Are  light  and  love  one  and  the  same  thing  ?)  "The 
sixth,  sound  or  understanding."  (Are  then  sound  and  understanding 
the  same  thing?;  "  The  seventh,  a  life  of  triumphing  joy."  (p.  58.) 
Is  then  a  life  of  triumphing  joy,  "  that  which  brings  the  three  and 
three  properties  into  union  ?"  If  so,  how  can  it  be  "  the  result  of 
that  union  ?"     Do  these  things  hang  together  / 

To  conclude  this  head.  You  say,  "  attraction  is  an  incessant 
working  of  three  contrary  properties,  drawing,  resisting,  and  whirl- 
ing !"  (p.  200.)  That  is  in  plain  terms,  (a  discovery  Avorthy  of  Ja- 
cob Behmen,  and  yet  not  borrowed  by  Sir  Isaac!)  "  Drawing  is 
incessant  drawing,  resistance,  and  whirling." 

II.  Of  the  creation  : 

You  put  diese  words,  with  many  more  equally  important,  into  the 
mouth  of  God  himself! 

"  Angels  first  inhabited  the  region  which  is  now  taken  up  by  the 
sun  and  the  planets  that  move  round  him.  It  was  then  all  a  glassy 
sea,  in  which  perpetual  scenes  of  light  and  glory  were  ever  rising  and 
changing  in  obedience  to  their  call.  Hence  they  fancied  they  had 
infinite  power,  and  resolved  to  abjure  all  submission  to  God.  In 
that  moment  they  were  whirled  down  into  their  own  dark,  fiery, 
working  powers.  And  in  that  moment  the  glassy  sea,  by  the  wrath- 
ful workings  of  these  spirits,  was  broke  in  pieces,  and  became  a  chaos 

*  Sp.  of  Love,  P.  II.  p.  64. 


A  Letter  to  the  rev.  mr.  law.  lil 

•iF  fire  and  wrath,  thickness,  and  darkness."  Sp.  of  Prayer,  P.  I.  p. 
14,  &c. 

I  would  inquire  upon  this,  1.  Is  it  well  for  a  man  to  take  suclt 
liberty  with  the  Most  High  God  ?  2.  Is  not  this  being  immeasurably 
'  wise  above  that  v/hich  is  written  V  Wiser  than  all  the  Prophets  and 
nil  the  Apostles  put  together  ?  3.  How  can  any  thing  of  this  bo 
proved  ?  Why  thus:  "  'Darkness  was  upon  the  face  of  the  deep.' 
What  can  this  mean,  but  that  the  fall  of  angels  brought  desolalioii 
into  the  very  place  of  this  world  ?"  P.  11.  p.  49.     What  a  proof! 

Secondly,  "  The  Scripture  shows,  that  the  Spirit  of  God  entering 
into  this  darkness,"  (that  is,  into  the  very  place  where  Satan  reigned 
before,)  "  brought  forth  a  new  world."  p.  50. 

Where  does  it  show  that  this  darkness  was  the  place  where  Satan 
reigned  ?     I  cannot  find  it  in  my  Bible, 

Thirdly,  "  How  could  the  Devil  be  called,  '  The  Prince  of  this 
world,'  if  it  was  not  once  his  own  kingdom  ?"  (ibid.)  May  he  no) 
be  so  called,  because  he  now  reigns  therein?  Is  he  notnoio  'the 
ruler  of  the  darkness,'  or  wickedness,  '  of  this  world  ?' 

Fourthly,  "  Had  it  not  been  their  own  kingdom,  the  devils  coubi 
have  no  power  here.  This  may  pass  for  a  demonstration.  That  thi* 
is  the  very  place  in  which  the  angels  fell."  p.  51.  I  doubt,  it  tC^ill  noi 
pass.  Cannot  God  permit  Satan  to  exert  his  power,  wherever  ii 
pleaseth  him  ? 

Hitherto  then  we  have  not  a  grain  of  sound  proof.  Yet  you  pro- 
nounce with  all  peremptoriness,  "  The  grounds  of  true  religion  can- 
iiot  be  truly  known  but  by  going  so  far  back  as  this  fall  of  angels." 
p.  37,  38.  Cannot  ?  Positively,  cannot  ?  How  few  men  in  Eng 
land,  in  Europe,  can  or  do  go  back  so  far?  And  are  there  none  but 
these,  no  not  one,  who  knows  the  grounds  of  true  religion  ? 

"  It  was  their  revolt  which  brought  wrath,  and  fire,  and  thickness, 
and  darkness  into  nature."  (ibid.)  If  it  was  sin  that  brought  fire  into 
ihe  world,  (which  is  liard  to  prove)  did  it  bring  darkness  ?  And 
thickness  too  ?  But  if  it  did  what  harm  is  there  in  either?  Is  not 
thickness  as  good  in  its  place  as  thinness  ?  And  as  to  darkness  you 
say  yourself  "  It  has  not  only  no  evil  in  it,  but  is  the  only  ground  ol 
all  possible  good." 

Touching  creation  in  general  you  aver,  "  A  creation  out  of  no- 
thing is  no  better  sense  than  a  creation  into  nothing."  (p.  60.)  '•  A 
creation  into  nothing"  is  a  contradiction  in  terms.  Can  you  say  a 
creation  out  of  nothing  is  so  ?  It  is  indeed  tautology :  since  the  single 
term  creation  is  equivalent  with  production  out  of  nothing.  "  Thfil 
all  things  were  created  out  of  nothing,  has  not  the  least  tittle  of  Scrip- 
ture to  support  it."  (p.  55.)  Is  it  not  supported  (as  all  the  Christian 
church  has  thought  hidierto)  by  the  very  first  verse  of  Genesis  ? 

"  Nay,  it  is  a  fiction  big  with  the  grossest  absurdities.  It  is  full  of 
horrid  consequences.  It  separates  every  thing  from  God.  It  leavet^ 
no  relation  between  God  and  the  creature.  For,  (mark  the  proof!) 
"if  it  is  created  out  of  nothing,  it  cannot  have  something  of  God  in 
it."  (p.  58.)  The  consequence  is  not  clear.  Till  this  is  made  good: 
can  any  of  those  propositions  be  allowed  1 
Vol.  9.— M 


122  A   LETTER    TO   THE    REV.  MR.  LAW, 

"  Nature  is  the  first  birth  of  God."  Did  God  create  it  or  not  ? 
If  not,  how  came  it  out  of  liim  ?  If  he  did,  did  he  create  it  out  of 
something,  or  nothing  ! 

"  St.  Paul  says.  All  tilings  are  of,  or  out  of  God." — And  what  does 
this  prove,  but  that  God  is  the  cause  of  all  things  ? 

"  The  materiality  of  the  angelic  kingdom  was  spiritual."  (Sp.  of 
Prayer,  P.  II.  p.  27.)  What  is  spiritual  materiality  !  Is  it  not  much 
the  same  with  immaterial  materiality  ? — "  This  spiritual  materiality 
brought  forth  the  heavenly  flesh  and  blood  of  angels."  (p.  57.)  That 
angels  have  bodies  you  affirm  elsewhere.  But  are  you  sure,  they  have 
flesh  and  blood  ?  Are  not  the  angels  spirits  ?  And  surely  a  '  spirit 
hath  not  flesh  and  blood.' 

"  The  whole  glassy  sea  was  a  mirror  of  beauteous  forms,  colours, 
and  sounds  perpetually  springing  up,  having  also  fruhs  and  vegeta- 
bles, but  not  grr«-s,  as  the  fruits  of  the  world.  This  was  continually 
bringing  forth  new  figures  of  life  ;  not  animals,  but  ideal  forms  of 
the  endless  divisibility  of  life.'"  (P.  I.  p.  18,  19.)  This  likewise  is 
put  into  the  mouth  of  God.     But  is  nonsense  from  the  Most  High  1 

What  less  is  "  a  mirror  of  beauteous  sounds  ?"  And  what  are 
"  figures  of  life  ?"  Are  they  alive  or  dead  ?  Or  between  both  ?  As 
a  man  may  be  between  sleeping  and  waking  ?  What  are  "  ideal 
forms  of  endless  divisibility  of  life  ?"  Are  they  the  same  with  those 
forms  of  stones,  one  of  w^hich  Maraton  took  up  (while  he  was  seek- 
ing Yaratilda.)  to  throw  at  the  form  of  a  lion  ?     See  the  Spectator. 

"  The  glassy  sea  being  become  thick  and  dark,  the  spirit  converted 
its  fire  and  wrath  into  sun  and  stars,  its  dross  and  darkness  into  earth, 
its  mobility  into  air,  its  moisture  into  water."  P.  II.  p.  29. 

Was  wrath  converted  into  sun  or  stars'?  Or  a  Ihtle  of  it  bestow- 
ed on  both  ?  How  was  darkness  turned  into  earth?  Or  mobility 
into  air  ?  Has  not  fire  more  mobility  than  this  ?  Did  there  need 
omnipotence,  to  convert  fire  into  fire  ?  Into  the  Sun  ?  Or  moisture 
into  water  ? 

"  Darkness  was  absolutely  unknown  to  the  angels  till  they  fell. 
Hence  it  appears,  tlmt  darkness  is  the  ground  of  the  materiality  of 
nature."  (p.  33.)  Appears.''  To  whom  ?  Nothing  appears  to  me, 
but  the  proving  ignotwn  per  ignot'ws. 

"  All  life  is  a  desire."  (Sp.  of  Love,  P.  II.  p.  198.)  Every  desire, 
as  such,  is,  and  must  be  made  up  of  contrariety."  (ibid.)  "  God's 
bringing  a  sensible  creature  into  existence,  is  the  bringing  the  power 
of  desire  into  a  creaturely  state."  Does  not  all  this  require  a  little 
more  proof?     And  not  a  little  illustration  ? 

"  Hard  and  soft,  thick  and  thin,  could  have  no  existence  till  nature 
lost  its  first  purity,-  And  this  is  the  one  true  origin  of  all  the  mate- 
riality of  this  world.  Else  nothing  thick  or  hard  could  ever  have 
been."  (P.  I.  p.  21.)  Does  not  this  call  for  much  proof?  Since 
most  people  believe,  God  created  matter,  merely  because  '  so  it  seem- 
ed good  in  his  sight.' 

But  you  add  a  kind  of  proof  "  How  comes  a  flint  to  be  so  hard 
and  dark  1    It  is  because  the  meekness  and  fluidity  of  the  light,  air, 


A   LETTER   TO   THE   REV.  MR.  LAW.  123 

Rnd  water  are  not  in  it."  (ibid.)  The  meekness  of  light,  air,  and 
water !     What  is  that  ?     Is  air  or  water  capable  of  virtue  ? 

"  The  first  property  of  natuse  is  a  constraining,  attracting,  and 
coagulating  power."  (p.  24.)     I  wait  the  proof  of  this. 

"  God  brought  gross  matter  out  of  the  sinful  properties  of  nature, 
that  thereby  the  fallen  angels  might  lose  all  their  power  over  them." 
(p.  27.)  And  hare  they  lost  all  power  over  them?  Is  Satan  no 
longer  '  Prince  of  the  power  of  the  air  ?' 

"  As  all  matter  is  owing  to  the  first  property  of  nature,  which  is  an 
astringing,  compressing  desire."  (p.  28.) — Stop  here.  Sir.  I  totally 
deny,  that  any  unintelligent  being  is  capable  of  any  desire  at  all. 
And  yet  this  gross,  capital  mistake  runs  through  your  whole  theory. 

"  The  fourth  property  is  fire."  (p.  49.)  Where  is  the  proof? — 
"  which  changes  the  properties  of  nature  into  an  heavenly  state." 
(p.  48.)  Proof  agahi.  "  The  conjunction  of  God  and  nature 
brings  forth  fire."     This  needs  the  most  proof  of  all. 

"  Every  right  kindled  fire  must  give  forth  light."  Why  ?  "  Be- 
cause the  eternal  fire  is  the  effect  of  supernatural  light."  Nay  then 
light  should  rather  give  forth  ^re.  "  The  fire  of  the  soul  and  that  of 
the  body  has  but  one  nature."  (p.  52.)  Can  either  Behmen  or  Spi- 
nosa  prove  this  ? 

III.  Of  Adam  in  Paradise. 

"  Paradise  is  an  heavenly  birth  of  life."  (Sp.  of  Prayer,  P.  I.  p.  6.) 
How  does  this  definition  explain  the  thing  defined  ? 

"  Adam  had  at  first  both  an  heavenly  and  an  earthly  body.  Into 
the  latter  was  the  spirit  of  this  world  breathed,  and  in  this  spirit  and 
body  did  the  heavenly  spirit  and  body  of  Adam  dwell."  (p.  7.)  So 
he  had  originally  two  bodies  and  two  souls  !  This  will  need  abun- 
dance of  proof  "  The  spirit  and  body  of  this  world  was  the  medium, 
through  which  he  was  to  have  commerce  with  this  world."  The 
proof  "  But  it  was  no  more  alive  in  him,  than  Satan  and  the  serpent 
were  alive  in  him  at  his  first  creation.  Good  and  evil  were  then 
only  in  his  outward  body  and  in  the  outward  world."  What  was 
there  evil  in  the  world,  and  even  in  Adam,  together  with  Satan  and 
the  serpent,  at  his  first  creation?  "  But  they  were  kept  unactive  by 
the  power  of  the  heavenly  man  within  him :"  Did  this  case  cover 
the  earthly  man  ?     Or  the  earthly  case  the  heavenly  ? 

But  "  he  had  power  to  choose,  whether  he  would  use  his  outward 
body  only  as  a  mean  of  opening  the  outward  world  to  him." — So  it 
was  not  quite  unactive  neither :  "  or  of  opening  the  bestial  life  in  him- 
self (p.  9.)  Till  this  was  opened  in  him,  nothing  in  tliis  outward 
world,  no  more  than  his  own  outward  body  :"  (so  now  it  is  unactive 
again,)  "  could  act  upon  him,  make  any  impressions  upon  him,  or 
raise  any  sensations  in  him ;  neither  had  he  any  feeling  of  good  or 
evil  from  it."  All  this  being  entirely  new,  we  must  beg  clear  and  full 
proof  of  it. 

"  God  said  to  man  at  his  creation,  rule  thou  over  this  imperfect, 
perishing  world,  without  partaking  of  its  impure  nature."  (p.  21.) 
Was  not  the  world  then  at  first  perfect  in  its  kind  ?     Was  it  impure 


124  A    LETTER   TO    THE   REV.  MK.  LAW, 

then  ?  Or  wouW  it  have  peiished  if  man  had  not  sinned  ?  And  are  wr* 
sure  that  God  spake  thus  ] 

"  The  end  God  proposed  in  the  creation,  was  the  restoring  all 
lliiiigs  to  their  glorious  state."  (P.  II.  p.  61.)  In  the  creation  1  Was 
not  this  rather  the  end  which  he  proposed  in  the  redemption  1 

"  Adam  was  created  to  keep  what  is  called  the  curse,  covered 
and  overcome  by  Paradise.  And  as  Paradise  concealed  and  over- 
came all  the  evil  in  the  elements,  so  Adam's  heavenly  man  conceal- 
ed from  him  all  the  evil  of  the  earthly  nature  that  was  under  it." 
(p.  62.)  Can  we  believe  that  there  was  any  evil'm  man  from  the 
creation,  if v.'e believe  the  Bible'? 

"  Our  own  good  spirit  is  the  very  Spirit  of  God :  and  yet  not  God^ 
but  the  Spirit  of  God  kindled  into  a  creaturely  form."  Is  there  any 
meaning  in  these  words  1  And  how  are  they  consistent  with  those 
that  follow  1  "This  spirit  is  so  related  to  God,  as  my  breath  is  to  the 
air."  (p.  195.)  Nay,  if  so,  your  spirit  is  God.     For  your  breath  is  air. 

"  That  Adam  had  at  first  the  nature  of  an  angel  is  plain  from 
iience,  that  he  was  both  male  and  female  in  one  person.  Now  this 
(the  being  both  male  and  female)  is  the  very  pertection  of  the  an- 
gelic nature."  (p.  65.)  Naturalists  say,  that  snails  have  this  perfec-- 
tion.     But  who  can  prove,  that  angels  have  1 

You  attempt  to  prove  it  thus  :  "  in  the  resurrection  they  neithei 
inarry,  nor  are  given  in  marriage,  but  are  as  the  angels.'     Here  we 
ure  told,  1.  That  the  being  m^ale  and  female  in  one  person,  is  the  very 
nature  of  angels.     2.  That  man  shall  be  so  too  at  the  resurrection 
Therefore  he  was  so  at  first."  (p.  66.) 

Indeed,  we  are  not  told  here,  that  angels  are  hermaphrodites.  No. 
nor  any  thing  like  it.  The  whole  passage  is,  '  They  who  are  ac- 
counted worthy  to  obtain  that  world,  and  the  resurrection  from  the 
dead,  neither  marry,  nor  are  given  in  marriage  :  nehher  can  they 
die  any  more:  for  they  are  equal  unto  the  angels;'  (Luke  xx. 
35,  36,)  namely,  (not  in  being  male  and  female,  but)  in  this,  that 
they  '  cannot  die  any  more.'  This  is  the  indisputable  meaning  oi 
the  vv^ords.     So  this  whole  proof  vanishes  into  air. 

You  have  one  more  thought,  full  as  new  as  this.  "  All  earthly 
beasts  are  but  creaturely  eruptions  of  the  disorder  that  is  broken  out 
from  the  fallen  spiritual  world.  So  earthly  serpents  are  but  transi- 
tory out-births  of  covetousness,  envy, pride,  andwrath."  (Sp.  of  Love» 
P.  II.  p.  207.)  How  shall  we  reconcile  this  v/ith  the  Mosaic  ac- 
t'ount?  '  And  God  said,  Let  the  earth  bring  forth  cattle,  and  creep- 
ing thing,  and  beast.  And  God  made  the  beast  of  the  earth ;  and 
God  saw  that  it  was  good.'  Gen.  i.  24,  25.  Does  any  thing  here  in- 
timate, that  beasts  or  serpents  literally  crept  out  of  the  womb  of  sin'? 
•Vnd  what  have  serpents  in  particular,  to  do  with  covetousness'?  Or 
indeed  with  envy,  unless  in  poetic  fables  ? 

IV.  OftheFallofMan. 

"  Adam  had  lost  much  of  his  perfection,  before  Eve  was  taken 
out  of  him.  '  It  is  not  good,'  said  God,  that  '  man  should  be  alone.' 
This  shows  that  Adam  had  now  made  that  not  to  be  good  which 


A   LETTER   TO    TUB    JtEV.  MR.  LAW.  125 

God  saw  to  be  good  when  he  created  him."  (Sp.  of  Pr.  p.  74.)  Nay, 
does  it  show  either  more  or  less  than  this,  that  it  was  not  conduci;  c 
to  the  wise  ends  God  had  in  view,  for  man  to  remain  single  1 

God  then  divided  the  human  nature,  into  a  male  and  female  crea- 
ture. Otherwise  man  would  have  brought  forth  his  own  likeness 
out  of  himself,  in  the  same  manner  as  he  had  a  birth  from  God.  But 
Adam  let  in  an  adulterous  love  of  the  world  :  by  this  his  virginity 
was  lost,  and  he  had  no  longer  a  power  of  bringing  forth  a  birth 
from  himself."  (p.  75.)     We  have  no  shadow  of  proof  for  all  this. 

"  This  state  of  inability  is  called  his  falling  into  a  deep  sleep." 
(p.  76.)  How  does  this  agree  with  'The  Lord  God  caused  a  deep 
sleep  to  fall  upon  Adam  1'  Gen.  ii.  21. 

"  God  took  his  Eve  out  of  him,  as  a  lesser  evil  to  avoid  a  greater. 
For  it  was  a  less  folly,  to  love  the  female  part  of  himself,  than  to  love 
things  lower  than  himself."  p.  77. 

Who  can  extract  this  out  of  the  words  of  Moses  ?  Who  can  re- 
concile it  with  the  words  of  our  Lord  ?  '  He  who  made  them  at  the 
beginning'  (not  a  word  of  any  previous  fall)  '  made  them  male  and 
female.  And  said,  For  this  cause  shall  a  man  leave  father  and  mo- 
ther, and  cleave  unto  his  wife.'  Matt.  xix.  4,  5.  Is  here  any  inti- 
mation, that  fbv  a  man  to  love  his  wife,  is  only  less  folly  than  to  love 
the  world  ?  '  A  man  ought  so  to  love  his  wife,  even  as  Christ  the 
church.'     Is  there  any  folly  in  the  love  of  Christ  to  the  church? 

"  Marriage  came  in  by  Ada:n's  falling  from  his  first  perfection." 
(p.  78.)  Does  this  account  do  honour  to  that  institution  ?  Any  more 
than  that  memorable  saying  of  an  eminent  mystic,  "  Marriage  is  but 
licensed  whoredom." 

"Had  Adam  stood,  no  Eve  would  have  been  taken  out  of  him. 
But  from  Eve  God  raised  that  angelic  man,  whom  Adam  shouk;  have 
brought  forth  without  Eve,  who  is  called  The  Second  Adam,  as  being 
both  male  and  female."  (p.  79.)  Many  things  here  want  proof. 
How  does  it  appear,  1 .  That  Eve  would  not  have  been,  had  Adam 
stood]  2.  That  had  he  stood,  he  would  have  brought  forth  the  Se- 
cond Adam  without  Eve*?  3.  That  Christ  was  both  male  and  female? 
And,  4.  That  he  was  on  this  account  called  The  Second  Adam  1 

"  The  Second  Adam  is  now  to  do  that  which  the  first  should 
haA'e  done."  (p.  84.)  Is  he  to  do  no  more  than  that  ?  No  more  than 
a  mere  creature  should  have  done  ?  Then  what  need  is  there  of  his 
being  any  more  than  a  creature  1  What  need  of  his  being  God  1 

"  Our  having  from  him  a  new  heavenly  flesh  and  blood,  raised  in 
us  by  his  spiritual  power,  is  the  strongest  j)roof,  that  we  should  have 
been  born  of  Adam  by  the  same  sjMritual  power."  (p.  85.)  Had 
Adam  then  tlic  very  same  spiritual  power,  v/hich  Christ  had  t  And 
would  he,  if  he  had  stood,  have  transmitted  to  us  the  very  same  bene- 
fit 1  Surely  none  that  believes  the  Christian  revelatioii  will  aver  this 
in  cool  blood  ! 

"  From  Adam's  desire  turned  toward  the  world,  the  earth  got  a 
power  of  giving  forth  an  evil  tree.  It  was  his  will  which  opened  a 
passage  for  the  evil  hid  in  the  earth,"  (I  know  not  how  it  came 

M2 


i';Hi  A  LETTER  TO  THE  REV.  MR.  LAW, 

there  before  Adam  fell,)  "  to  bring  forth  a  tree  In  its  own  likenesi'. 
No  sooner  was  it  brought  forth,  than  God  assured  him  that  death 
was  hid  in  it :  a  plain  proof  that  this  tree  was  not  from  God,  but  from 
a  power  in  the  earth,  which  could  not  show  itself,  till  Adam  desired 
to  taste  something  which  was  not  paradisiacal."  p.  96. 

This  is  the  marvellous  in  the  highest  degree,  and  affords  many 
questions  not  very  easy  to  be  answered.  But  waiving  all  these,  can 
any  thing  be  more  flatly  contradictory  to  the  Mosaic  account?  We 
read  there,  '  The  Lord  God  formed  man.'  (Gen.  ii.  7.)  'And  the 
Lord  planted  a  garden.'  (ver.  8.)  'And  out  of  the  ground  made  the 
Lord  God  every  tree  to  grow  that  is  pleasant  to  the  sight  and  good 
for  food  ;  the  tree  of  Hfe,  and  the  tree  of  knowledge  of  good  and  evil.' 
(ver.  9.)  Is  it  not  here  plainly  taught,  that  this  tree  was  from  Godl 
That  not  the  desire  of  Adam,  but  the  Lord  God  made  this  tree  to 
grow,  as  well  as  the  tree  of  life]  And  when  was  it  that  God  gave 
him  that  solemn  v/arning,  '  In  the  day  that  thou  eatest  thereof,  thou 
shalt  surely  diel'  (ver.  l7.)  Not  as  soon  as  that  tree  was  brought 
forth :  but  when  Adam  was  put  into  the  garden. 

"At  first  all  the  natural  properties  of  man's  crcaturely  life  were  hid 
in  God,  just  as  the  natural  qualities  of  darkness  are  hid,  till  glorified 
by  the  light."  (Spirit  of  Love,  part  II.  p.  181.)  Nay^  were  they  not 
sufficiently  hid  by  the  heavenly  man?  Need  they  be  hid  over  and 
over  ? 

"But  when  man  fell,  all  these  properties  broke  forth,  just  as  the 
darkness  when  it  has  lost  the  light,  must  show  forth  its  own  coldness^ 
horror,  and  other  uncomfortable  qualities."  Exemplum placet !  But 
are  either  coldness  or  horror,  natural  qualities  of  darknessl  If  so. 
they  must  be  inseparable  from  it.     But  who  will  affirm  this? 

"Darkness,  though  contrary  to  light,  is  yet  absolutely  necessary 
io  it.  Without  this  no  manifestation  or  visibility  of  light  could  possi- 
bly be."  This  is  absolutely  new  and  surprising.  But  how  is  it  to 
be  proved? 

Thus  :  "  God  dwelleth  in  the  light  which  no  man  can  approach. 
Therefore  light  cannot  be  manifested  to  man  but  by  darkness."  (p. 
189.)  Ah  poor  consequence!  Would  not  the  same  text  just  as  well 
prove  transubstantiation  ? 

"  Light  and  darkness  do  every  thing,  whether  good  or  evil,  that  is 
done  in  man.  Light  is  all  power,  light  is  all  things,  and  nothing,'^ 
(ibid.)  I  cannot  conceive  what  ideas  you  affix  to  the  terms,  light  and 
darkness.  But  I  forget.  You  except  against  ideas.  Can  you  teach 
us  to  think  without  them  ? 

Once  more.  \^ou  say,  "  Darkness  is  a  positive  thing,  and  has  a 
strength  and  substantiality  in  it."  (p.  182.)  I  have  scarcely  met 
with  a  greater  friend  to  darkness,  except  "  the  illuminated  Jacob 
Behmen." 

But,  Sir,  have  you  not  done  him  an  irreparable  injury  ?  I  do  not 
mean  by  misrepresenting  his  sentiments,  (though  some  of  his  pro- 
found admirers  are  positive,  that  you  misunderstand  and  murder  him 
tliroughout:)  but  by  dragging  him  out  of  his  awful  obscurity;  by 


A   LETTER   TO   THE   REV.    MK.    LAW.  127 

pouring  light  upon  his  venerable  darkness  ?  Men  may  admire  the 
deepness  of  the  well,  and  the  excellence  of  the  water  it  contains. 
But  if  some  officious  person  puts  a  light  into  it,  it  will  appear  to  be 
both  very  shallow  and  very  dirty. 

I  could  not  have  borne  to  spend  so  many  words  on  so  egregious 
trifles,  but  that  they  are  mischievous  trifles  : 

H<B  ntigcB  seria  ducunt 
In  mda. 

This  is  dreadfully  apparent  in  your  own  case,  (I  would  not  speak, 
but  that  I  dare  not  refrain,)  whom  notwithstanding  your  uncoramoit 
abilities,  they  have  led  astray  in  things  of  the  greatest  importance. 
Bad  philosophy  has,  by  insensible  degrees,  paved  the  way  for  bad 
divinity  :  in  consequence  of  this  miserable  hypothesis,  you  advance 
many  things  in  religion  also,  some  of  which  are  unsupported  by 
Scripture,  some  even  repugnant  to  it. 

II.  Some  of  these  1  shall  now  mention  with  the  utmost  plainness, 
as  knowing  for  whom,  and  before  whom  I  speak. 

And,  1.  You  deny  the  omnipotence  of  God. 

You  say,  "  As  no  seeing  eye  could  be  created,  unless  there  was 
antecedent  to  it,  a  natural  visibility  of  things." — Why  not '?  Why 
might  not  visible  things  be  created  at  the  same  instant  with  it  ? — • 
"  So  no  creature  could  come  into  any  natural  life,  unless  such  a  state 
of  nature  was  antecedent  to  it."  (p.  60.)  "  All  that  God  does,  is 
and  must  be  done  in  and  by  the  powers  of  nature."  (p.  135.)  What 
then  did  it  avail,  that,  as  you  elsewhere  say,  God  was  before  nature  1 
He  not  only  could  not  then  do  all  things,  but  he  could  do  nothing, 
till  nature  existed.  But  if  so,  how  came  nature  itself,  this  second 
eternal,  to  exist  at  all  .' 

"  There  cannot  possibly  be  any  other  difference  between  created 
beings,  than  arises  from  that  out  of  which  they  were  created."  (p. 
GO.)  Why  not  1  Who  will  stay  the  hand  of  the  Almighty,  or  say 
unto  him,  What  dost  thou  ? 

"  No  fruits  or  vegetables  could  have  sprung  up  in  the  divided  ele- 
ments, but  because  they  are  parts  of  that  glassy  sea,  where  angelical 
fruits  grew  before."  (Spirit  of  Prayer,  part  I.  p.  19.)  But  how  came 
those  fruits  to  grow  before  ]  How  came  they  to  grow  in  the  glassy 
sea  '?  Were  they  not  produced  out  of  nothhig  at  first  1  If  not,  God 
was  not  before  nature.  If  they  were,  cannot  he  still  produce  ~out 
of  nothing  whatsoever  pleaseth  him  ] 

''  All  outward  nature  being  fallen  from  heaven" — That  we  deny 
— "  must,  as  well  as  it  can,  do  and  work  as  it  did  in  heaven."  ([). 
20.)  "  As  well  as  it  can  !"  What  can  it  do  without  God  1  Who 
upholdetli  all  things  by  the  word  of  his  power  !  And  what  can  it 
not  do,  if  he  pleaseth  1  Or  rather,  what  cannot  he  do,  with  or  with- 
out it  1 

"  Matter  could  not  possibly  be,  but  from  sin."  (Spirit  of  Love, 
part  I.  p.  23.)  That  is,  in  very  plain  terms,  God  could  not  have 
created  matter,  if  Satan  had  not  sinned  !  "  God  could  not  create 


J 28  A   LETTER   TO   THE   REV.    MR.    LAW. 

man  with  a  soul  and  a  body,  unless  there  was  such  a  thing  as  nature, 
antecedent  to  the  creation  of  man."  p.  20. 

Why  could  not  God  do  this  ?  Because  "  body  and  spirit  are  not 
two  separate  things,  but  are  only  the  inward  and  outward  condition 
of  one  and  the  same  being  Every  creature  must  have  its'  own 
body,  and  cannot  be  without  it.  For  its  body  is  that" — Who  would 
have  thought  it  1 — "  which  makes  it  manifest  to  itself.  It  cannot 
know,  either  that  it  is,  or  what  it  is,  but  by  its  own  body  !"  (p.  32.) 
What  a  heap  of  bold  assertions  is  here,  to  curb  Omnipotence  ! 
And  not  one  of  them  has  a  tittle  of  proof,  unless  one  can  prove  the 
other. 

But  we  have  more  still.  "  The  body  (of  any  creature)  has  nothing 
of  its  own,  but  is  solely  the  outward  manifestation  of  that  which  is 
inwardly  in  the  soul.  Every  animal  has  nothing  in  its  outward  form 
or  shape,  but  that  which  is  the  form  and  growth  of  its  spirit.  As  no 
number  can  be  any  thing  else,  but  that  which  the  units  contained 
in  it  make  it  to  be,  so  no  body  can  be  any  thing  else  but  the  coagu- 
lation or  sum  total  of  those  properties  of  nature  that  are  coagulated 
in  it."  p.  33. 

Astonishing  !  What  a  discovery  is  this  !  That  a  body  is  only  a 
curdled  spirit !  That  our  bodies  are  only  the  sum  total  of  our  spi- 
ritual properties  :  and  that  the  form  of  every  man's  body  is  only  the 
form  of  his  spirit  made  visible  ! 

*' Every  spirit  manifests  its  own  nature  by  that  body  which  proceeds 
from  it  as  its  own  birth."  (Spirit  of  Love,  part  II.  p.  17.)  Does 
the  body  then  grow  out  of  the  spirit,  as  the  hair  and  nails  grow  out 
of  the  body  1  And  this,  in  consequence  of  the  "  powers  of  nature," 
distinct  from  the  power  and  will  of  God  ? 

To  abridge  God  of  his  power,  after  creation,  as  well  as  before  it, 
you  affirm  farther,  "  This  is  an  axiom  that  cannot  be  shaken,  nothing 
can  rise  higher  than  its  first  created  nature  ;  and  therefore  an  angel 
at  last  must  have  been  an  angel  at  first.  Do  you  think  it  possible  for 
an  ox  to  be  changed  into  a  rational  philosopher  1  Yet  this  is  as  pos- 
sible as  for  one  who  has  only  by  creation  the  life  of  this  world,  to 
be  changed  into  an  angel  of  heaven.  The  life  of  this  world  can 
reach  no  farther  than  this  world  :  no  omnipotence  of  God  can  carry 
it  farther.  Therefore  if  man  is  to  be  an  angel  at  last,  he  must  have 
been  created  an  angel :  because  no  creature  can  possibly  have  any 
other  life  or  higher  degree  of  life,  than  that  which  his  creation  brought 
forth  in  him."  Spirit  of  Prayer,  part  II.  p.  81. 

I  have  quoted  this  passage  at  some  length,  that  the  sense  of  it  may 
appear  beyond  dispute.  But  what  divinity  !  x\nd  what  reasoning  to 
support  it !  Can  God  "  raise  nothing  higher  than  its  first  created 
state  1"  Is  it  not  possible  for  him  to  "  change  an  ox"  or  a  stone 
into  a  rational  philosopher,  or  a  child  of  Abraham  1  To  change  a 
man  or  a  worm  into  an  angel  of  heaven  ?  Poor  omnipotence  whicli 
cannot  do  this  !  Whether  he  will,  or  not,  is  another  question.  But 
if  he  cannot  do  it,  how  can  he  be  said  to  do  '  whatsoever  pleaseth 
him,  in  heaven,  and  in  earth,  and  in  the  sea,  and  in  all  deep  places  T 


A    LETTER    TO    THE    REV.    3IR.    LAW.  \W 

,  'rims  does  your  attachment  to  a  miserable  philosophy,  lead  you  to 
deny  the  almighty  power  of  God. 

II.  It  leads  you,  in  the  second  place,  to  deny  his  justice,  to 
abridge  this  no  less  than  his  power. 

This  1  may  be  permitted  to  consider  more  at  large  ;  because 
though  it  was  allowed  by  all  the  wiser  Heathens  of  past  ages,  yet  it  is 
iiow  one  main  hinge  on  which  the  controversy  between  Christianity 
and  Deism  turns.  To  convert  a  thousand  Deists,  therefore,  by  giving 
up  this  point,  with  the  doctrine  of  Justification  which  is  built  upon 
it,  is  little  more  than  it  would  be  to  convert  as  many  Jews,  by  allow- 
ing the  Messiah  is  not  yet  come.  It  is  converting  them  by  allowing 
all  they  contend  for ;  by  granting  them  the  main  point  in  question „ 
Consequently  it  is  no  other  than  establishing  Deism,  while  it  pretends 
to  overturn  it. 

I  would  greatly  wish,  in  weighing  what  you  have  advanced  on 
this  head,  to  forget  who  speaks,  and  simply  consider  what  is  spoken. 
The  person  I  greatly  reverence  and  love  ;  the  doctrine  I  utterly 
abhor,  as  I  apprehend  it  to  be  totally  subversive  of  the  very  essence 
of  Christianity. 

God  himself  hath  declared,  that  in  consequence  of  his  justice,  he 
will,  in  the  great  day  of  retribution,  '  render  to  every  man  according 
to  his  works,  whether  they  be  good  or  evil.'  But  man  says  no. 
"  There  is  no  righteous  wrath  or  vindictive  justice  in  God."  (Spirit 
of  Love,  part  II.  p.  108.)  If  so,  ye  may  go  on,  ye  children  of  the 
Devil,  in  doing  the  works  of  your  father.  It  is  written  indeed,  '  The 
■wrath  of  God  is  revealed  from  heaven  against  all  ungodliness  and 
unrighteousness.'  But  this  is  not  literally  to  be  taken  ;  for,  properly 
speaking,  there  is  no  such  thing  as  the  '  wrath  of  God  !' 

Fear  not  the  bug-bear  of  '  everlasting  burnings.'  There  is  not 
only  no  everlasting  punishment,  but  no  punishment  at  all ;  no  such 
thing  in  the  universe.     It  is  a  mere  vulgar  error  ! 

I  should  be  extremely  glad  to  prophesy  these  smooth  things  too, 
did  not  a  difficulty  lie  in  the  way.  As  nothing  is  more  frequently 
or  more  expressly  declared  in  Scripture,  than  God's  anger  at  sin, 
and  his  punishing  it  both  temporally  and  eternally,  every  assertion  ot 
this  kind  strikes  directly  at  the  credit  of  the  v/hole  revelation.  For 
if  there  be  one  falsehood  in  the  Bible,  there  may  be  a  thousand  ; 
neither  can  it  proceed  from  the  God  of  truth.  However,  I  will 
weigh  all  your  assertions.  And  may  the  God  of  truth  shine  on  both 
our  hearts ! 

I  must  premise,  that  I  have  no  objection  to  the  using  the  words 
wrath  (or  anger)  and  justice  as  nearly  synonymous  ;  seeing  anger 
stands  in  the  same  relation  to  justice,  as  love  does  to  mercy  :  love 
and  anger  being  the  passions  (speaking  after  the  manner  of  men) 
which  correspond  with  the  dispositions  of  mercy  and  justice.  Who- 
ever therefore  denies  God  to  be  capable  of  wrath  or  anger,  acts  con- 
©istently  in  denying  his  justice  also. 

You  begin,  1.  "No  wrath  (anger,  vindictive  justice)  ever  was  or 
ever  will  be  in  God."  (Spirit  of  Prayer,  part  I.  p.  27.)     If  a  wrath 


130  A   LETTER   TO   THE   HEV.    MB.    LAW. 

of  God  were  any  where,  it  must  be  every  where."    So  it  is,  as  Sure 
as  the  just  God  is  every  where. 

2.  *'  Wrath  and  pain  dwell  only  in  the  creatures."  (p.  28.)  Pain 
is  only  in  creatures.     Of  wrath  we  are  to  inquire  farther. 

3.  "To  say  God  ever  punished  any  creature  out  of  wrath,  is  as 
absurd  as  to  say,  he  beg'an  the  creation  out  of  wrath."  1  conceive  not. 
It  is  not  as  absurd  to  say,  God  is  anscry  at  the  guilty,  as  to  say  God  is 
angry  at  the  innocent.  Now  it  is  certain,  when  God  began  the  crea- 
tion of  man,  no  guilty  men  were  in  being. 

4.  "  He  must  always  will  that  to  his  creatures,  which  he  willed  at 
the  creation  of  them."  True.  And  he  willed,  at  the  very  creation 
of  men,  '  to  reward  every  one  as  his  work  should  be.' 

5.  "  God  is  uicapable  of  willing  pain  to  any  creature,  because  he 
is  nothing  but  goodness."  (p.  29.  ■  You  mean,  because  his  goodness 
excludes  justice.     Nay,  (hat  is  the  very  question. 

6.  "  God  can  give  nothing  but  happiness  from  himself,  because 
he  hath  nothing  else  in  himself"  (Spirit  of  Love,  part  I.  p.  3.)  As 
if  you  had  said,  "  God  can  give  nothing  but  infinity  from  himself, 
because  he  has  nothing  else  in  himself"  It  is  certain  he  has  not.  He 
is  all  infinity.     Yet  the  argument  will  not  hold. 

7.  "  God  can  no  more  begin  to  have  any  wrath  after  the  creature 
is  fallen,  than  he  could  be  infinite  wrath  and  rage  from  all  eternity." 
(part  H.  p.  4.)  No  changing  the  terms.  We  have  nothing  to  do 
with  rage.  This  properly  means  excessive  anger.  Setting  this 
aside,  I  answer  to  the  argument,  God  was  infinitely  just  from  all  eter- 
nity :  in  consequence  of  which  his  anger  then  began  to  show  itself, 
when  man  had  sinned. 

8.  "  No  wrath  can  be  in  God,  unless  God  was  from  all  eternity  an 
infinity  of  wrath."  (p.  6.)  That  is  infinitely  just,  Sa  he  was  and 
will  be  to  all  eternity. 

9.  "  There  must  be  either  no  possibility  of  wrath,  or  no  possi- 
bility of  its  having  any  bounds."  (p.  7.)  The  divine  justice  cannot 
possibly  have  any  bounds.      It  is  as  unlimited  as  his  power. 

10.  "  Two  things  show  the  nature  of  wrath,  a  tempest  and  a  ra- 
ging sore.  The  foi-mev  is  wrath  in  the  elements  ;  the.  latter  is  wrath 
in  the  body.  Now  Loth  these  are  a  disorder.  But  there  is  no  dis- 
order in  God.     Therefore,  there  is  no  wrath  in  God."  p.  13. 

"A  tempest  is  wrath  in  the  elements;  a  raging  sore  is  wrath  in  the 
body."  It  is  not.  Neither  the  body,  the  elements,  or  any  thing 
inanimate  is  capable  of  wrath.  And  when  we  say,  "  The  sore  looks 
angry,"  does  any  one  dream  this  is  to  be  taken  literally  1  The  pillars 
of  the  argument  therefore  are  rotten.  Consequently  the  super- 
structure falls  to  the  grouud. 

In  vain  would  ^ou  prop  it  up  by  saying,  "  Wrath  can  have  no 
other  nature  in  the  hody  than  it  has  in  spirit,  because  it  can  have  no 
existence  in  body,  tat  what  it  has  from  spirit."  (p.  15.)  Nay,  it  can 
have  no  existence  in  body  at  al',  as  yourself  affirm  presently  after. 
Yet  you  strangely  go  on,  "The^e  is  but  one  wrath  in  all  outward 
things,  animate  or  inanimaie."  Most  true  ;  for  all  wrath  is  in  ani- 
jiials ;  things  inanimate  are  utterly  incapable  of  it, 


A    LETTER   TO    THE   REV.    MR.    LAW.  131 

**  There  can  be  but  one  kind  of  v/rath,  because  nothing  can  bo 
wrathful  but  spirit."  (p.  18.)  Never  ihen  let  us  talk  of  wrathful 
elements,  or  wrathful  tempests,  oi-  sores,  again. 

11.  "  Wrath  and  evil  are  but  i  ,vo  words  for  the  same  thing-."  (ibid.) 
This  is  home.     But  it  cannot  be  granted  without  proof. 

12.  "  God  is  as  capable  of  wrath,  as  of  thickness,  hardness,  and 
darkness;  because  wrath  can  exist  no  where  else  but  in  thickness, 
hardness,  and  darkness."  (p.  71.)  So  far  from  it,  that  wrath  cannot 
exist  in  thickness  or  nardness  at  all.  For  these  are  qualities  oi 
bodies  :  and  "  nothing  can  be  wrathful  but  spirit." 

13.  "  Wrath  cannot  be  in  any  creature,  till  it  has  lost  its  first  per- 
fection." (p.  72.)     That  remains  to  be  proved. 

Thus  far  you  iiave  advanced  arguments  for  your  doctrine.  You 
next  attempt  to  answer  objections.  And  to  the  objection,  that 
Scripture  speaks  so  frequently  of  the  wrath  of  God,  you  answer, 

1.  "  All  the  wrath  and  vengeance  that  ever  were  in  any  creature, 
is  to  be  called  and  looked  on  as  the  wrath  and  vengeance  of  God.'^ 
I  totally  deny  that  proposition,  and  call  for  the  proof  of  it. 

2.  "  God  works  every  thing  in  nature.  Therefore  all  death,  or 
rage,  or  curse,  whatever  it  is,  must  be  said,  in  the  language  of  Scrip- 
ture, to  be  the  wrath  or  vengeance  of  God."  (p.  55.)  I  deny  the 
consequence.  The  latter  proposition  does  not  ibllow  from  the  for- 
mer. And  indeed  it  is  not  true.  All  death,  and  rage,  and  curse,  h 
not  in  the  language  of  Scripture  termed  the  wrath  and  vengeance 
of  God. 

3.  "  Because  the  devils  hare  their  life  from  God  ;  therefore  their 
cursed,  miserable,  wrathful  life,  is  said  to  be  the  curse,  and  misery, 
and  wrath  of  God  upon  them."  ([>.  53.)  Neither  can  this  be  proved, 
that  the  devils  having  their  life  fr  jm  God,  is  the  reason  why  they  are 
said  to  be  underhis  wrath.  Nor  does  the  Scripture  ever  term  their 
wrathful  miserable  life,  the  wrath  or  misery  of  God. 

4.  "  Devils  are  his,  as  well  as  holy  angels.  Therefore  all  the 
wrath  and  rage  of  the  one  must  be  as  truly  his  wrath  and  rage  burn- 
ing in  them,  as  the  joy  of  the  others  is  his  joy."  (p.  54.)  So  it 
seems,  "  The  wrath  of  God"  in  Scripture  means  no  more  or  less 
than  "  the  wrath  of  the  Devil !"  However  this  argument  will  not 
prove  it.  The  joy  of  saints  (not  of  angels  that  I  remember)  is 
styled,  The  joy  of  their  Lord,  because  he  prepared  it  for  them  and 
bestows  it  on  them.  Does  he  prepare  and  bestow  the  rage  of  devils 
upon  them. 

5.  "  His  wrath  and  his  vengeance  are  no  more  in  God,  than  what 
the  psalmist  calls  his  ice  and  his  frost.^^  (p.  74.)  There  is  nothing 
parallel  in  the  case.  We  cannot  take  the  latter  expressions  literally, 
without  glaring  absurdity  :  the  former  we  may. 

6.  "  The  earth  trembled  because  he  was  wroth.  No  wrath  here, 
but  in  the  elements."  Nay,  if  so,  here  was  no  wrath  at  all.  For  we 
are  agreed,  "  Only  spirits  can  be  wrathful." 

7.  One  more  text,  usually  cited  against  your  opinion,  you  im- 
prove into  an  argument  for  it.     « Avenge  not  yourselves,  for  veu- 


132  A    LETTER   TO  THE   REV.    MR.    LAW. 

geance  is  mine.'  "  This  is  a  full  proof  that  the  vengeance  Is  not  iu 
God.  If  it  was,  then  it  would  belong  to  every  child  of  God,  or  hr; 
could  not  'be  perfect  as  his  Father  is  perfect."  (p.  76.)  Yes,  he 
could,  in  all  his  imitable  perfections.  But  God  has  peculiarly  for- 
bidden our  imitating  him  in  this.  '  Vengeance,'  says  he,  '  is  mine,' 
incommunicably  mine  ;  unless  so  far  as  he  delegates  it  to  those  who 
are  in  authority.  This  therefore  clearly  shows,  that  God  executes 
vengeance,  though  justice,  not  vengeance,  is  properly  in  him. 

Having  now  proved  (as  you  suppose)  that  God  has  neither  aMger 
HOT  justice,  it  remains  only  to  show,  (which  indeed  follows  by  easy 
and  natural  consequence)  that  he  never  did,  nor  can  punish. 

"  To  say  Adam's  miserable  state  was  a  punishment  inflicted  upon 
Jjim  by  God,  is  an  utter  absurdity.  (Spirit  of  Prayer,  part  I.  p.  24.) 
His  sin  had  not  the  least  punishment  of  any  kind  inflicted  upon  it  by 
God."  (p.  26.)  This  is  flat  and  plain.  But  let  us  see  how  far  this 
account  agrees  with  that  which  God  himself  hath  given. 

*  Of  the  tree  of  knov/ledge  of  good  and  evil  thou  shalt  not  eat :  in 
the  day  thou  eatest  thereof  thou  shalt  surely  die.'  (Gen.  ii.  17.) 
*  And  the  serpent  said  unto  the  woman,  ye  shall  not  die.'  (ch.  iii.  4.) 
'  And  the  woman,  being  deceived,  did  eat,'  (I  Tim.  ii.  14.)  '  and  gave 
unto  her  husband  and  he  did  eat.' (Gen.  iii.  6.)  *And  the  Lord 
God  said  unto  the  serpent,  Because  thou  hast  done  this,  thou  art 
eursed — Dust  thou  shalt  eat  all  the  days  of  thy  life.'  (ver.  14.)  •  And 
i  will  put  enmity  between  thee  and  the  woman.'  ver.  15. 

*  Unto  the  woman  he  said,  I  will  greatly  multiply  thy  sorrow  and 
(that  is,  in)  thy  conception.'  (ver.  16.)  'And  unto  Adam  he  said, 
Because  thou  hast  eaten  of  the  tree,  cursed  is  the  ground  for  tliy 
sake  :  in  sorrow  shalt  thou  eat  of  it  all  the  days  of  thy  life.'  (ver. 
J  7.)     '  Dust  thou  art,  and  unto  dust  thou  shalt  return,'  ver.  19. 

Can  any  man  read  this  and  aflirm,  "  God  did  not  inflict  the 
least  punishment  cf  any  kind,  either  on  Eve  or  Adam,  or  the  ser- 
pent ?"     With  what  eyes  or  understanding  then  must  he  read  1 

But  you  say,  "  All  that  came  on  Adam  was  implied  in  what  he 
chose  to  himself."  (p.  25.)  It  was.  He  chose  it  to  himself  in  the 
same  sense,  that  he  who  robs  chooses  to  be  hanged.  But  this  does 
not  at  all  prove,  that  the  death  which  one  or  the  other  suffers  is  no 
punishment. 

You  go  on.  "  Fire  and  brimstone,  or  manna,  rained  on  Ihe 
earth,  are  only  one  and  the  same  love."  (Sp.  of  Love,  P.  II.  p.  72.) 
"  It  was  the  same  love  that  preserved  Noah,  burnt  up  ►?odom,  and 
overwhelmed  Pharaoh  in  the  Red  Sea."  (p.  68.)  Surely  nothinu, 
can  equal  this,  unless  you  add,  (which  indeed  you  must  do,  to  be 
f.onsistent  with  yourself,)  "  It  is  one  and  the  same  love  which  will 
say,  *  Come  ye  blessed,'  and  '  Depart  ve  cursed,  into  everlasting 
fire.'" 

You  add,  "  '  whom  the  Lord  loveth  he  chasteneth.'  Here  you 
have  God's  own  word  for  it,  nothing  but  love  chasteneth."  (p.  81.) 
We  know  his  love  chasteneth  his  children.  Of  these  only  God  i.>< 
speaking  here,  appears  from  the  latter  clause  of  the  sentence.     And 


A     LETTER   TO   THE  ItEV.  lUK.  LAW.  133 

yet  we  cannot  say  even  as  to  them,  It  is  nothing  but  his  love.     It  is 
mercy  mixed  with  justice. 

You  cite  one  text  niore  :  '  I  have  smitten  you  :  yet  have  ye  not 
returned  to  mc,'  (Amos  iv.  J) :)  and  say,  "  Now  how  is  it  possible 
for  words  to  give  stronger  proof!"  (ibid.)  Proof  of  what !  Not 
that  God  did  not  punish  them  :  but  that  '  in  the  midst  of  wrath  lie 
remembered  mercy.' 

To  these  texts  of  Scripture,  (wide  enough  of  the  point,)  you  sub-^ 
join,  "  The  doctrine  of  atonement  made  by  Christ  is  the  strongest 
demonstration,  that  the  wrath  to  be  atoned,  cannot  be  in  God."  (p 
85.)  Who  talks  of  "wrath  to  be  atoned  1"  "The  wrath  to  be 
atoned"  is  neither  sense  nor  English  ;  though  it  is  a  solecism  you 
perpetually  run  into  :  (I  hope  not  on  pui"pose  to  puzzle  the  cause  :\ 
that  the  sin  to  be  atoned  cannot  be  in  God  we  all  allow ;  but  it  does 
not  affect  the  question. 

Once  more,  to  silence  all  contradiction  at  once,  to  stop  the  mouths 
"of  all  gainsayers,  you  say,  "  This  (that  there  is  no  anger^  no  vin- 
dictive Justice  in  God,  no  punishment  at  all  inflicted  by  him,)  is  openly 
asserted,  constantly  affirmed  and  repeated  in  the  plainest  letter  oi 
Scripture."  Whether  this,  or  the  very  reverse  is  true,  will  appear, 
from  a  few  out  of  numberless  texts,  which  1  shall  barely  set  down, 
without  any  comment,  and  leave  to  your  cool  consideration. 

You  say,  I.  There  is  no  vindictive,  avenging,  or  punitive  justice 
in  God.  II.  There  is  no  wrath  or  anger  in  God.  IH.  God  inflicts 
no  punishment  on  any  creature,  neither  in  this  world,  nor  that  to 
come. 

God  says, 

I.  '  The  just  Lord  is  in  the  midst  of  you.'  (Zeph.  iii.  5.)  'Justice 
and  judgment  are  the  habitation  of  thy  throne.'  (Psalm  Ixxxix.  14.") 
'  Wilt  thou  condemn  him  that  is  most  just  .<"  (Job  xxxiv.  17.)  '  He 
is  excellent  in  power  and  in  plenty  oi'  justice.^  (Job  xxxvii.  13.) 
^Just  and  true  are  thy  ways,  O  King  of  saints.'  (Rev.  xv.  3.)  Thou 
art  just  in  all  that  is  broiight  upon  us.'  (Neh.  ix.  33.)  '  There  is 
no  God  beside  me,  a.  just  God  and  a  Saviour.'  Isaiah  xlv.  21. 
*  Whom  God  hath  sent  forth,  that  he  might  be  just  and  the  justifier 
of  him  that  believeth  in  Jesus.'  (Rom.  iii.  25,  26.) 

II.  'The  Lord  heard  their  words  and  was  wroth.''  (Deut.  i.  34.) 
'  The  Lord  was  loroth  with  me  for  your  sakes.'  (Chap.  iii.  26.)  '  I 
was  icroth  with  my  people.'  (Isa.  xlvii.  6.)  '  For  his  covetousness  I 
was  wroth.'  (Chap.  Ivii.  17.)  '  And  the  anger  oi'  the  Lord  was  kin- 
dled against  Israel.'  (Num.  xxv.  3.)  <  His  wrath  is  against  them 
that  forsake  him.' (Ezra  viii,  22.)  'Thou  art  very  irrot/t  with  us.' 
(Lam.  V.  20.)  '  Thou  art  loroth,  for  we  have  sinned.'  (Isa.  Ixiv.  5.) 
'Who  may  stand  in  thy  sight,  v/hen  thou  art  angry?'  (Psalm 
Ixxiv.  7.)  'I  have  mingled  my  drink  with  weeping,  because  of  thine 
indignation,  and  thy  lurath.'  (Psalm  cii.  9,  10.)  'In  my  wrath  1 
smote  thee.'  (Isa.  Ix.  10  )  '  He  hath  visited  in  his  anger.'  (Job  xxxv. 
15.)  'God  distributeth  sorrow  iu  his  anger.'  (Ch.  xxii.  17.)  'I 
have  seen  affliction  by  the  rod  of  his  wrath.'  (Lam.  iii.  1 . )     'I  swarc 

Vol.  9.— N 


134  A  lETTEE  TO   THE   REV.  aiB.  LAW, 

in  my  wrath,  they  shall  not  enter  into  my  rest.'  (Psalm  xcv.  11>) 
«  He  casteth  upon  them  the  fierceness  of  his  anger,  icrath,  and  indig- 
nation— He  made  a  way  to  his  anger,  he  spared  not  their  soul  from 
death.'  (Psalm  Ixxviii.  49,  50.)  '  At  his  loraththe  earth  shall  trem- 
ble.' (Jer.  X.  10.)  'The  land  is  desolate  because  of  his  anger.  (Ch. 
XXV.  38.)  <  By  his  anger  they  are  consumed.'  (Job  iv.  9.)  'The 
Lord  shall  swallow  them  up  in  his  icrath,  and  the  fire  shall  devour 
them.'  (Psalm  xxi.  9.)  '  The  Lord  turned  not  from  his  icrath.''  (2 
Kings  xxiii.  26.)  '  For  all  this  his  anger  is  not  turned  away,  but  his 
hand  is  stretched  out  still.'  (Isa.  v.  25.)  '  The  Lord  is  slow  to  an- 
ger, and  of  great  kindness  :  he  will  not  always  chide,  neither  keepeth 
he  his  anger  for  ever.'  (Psalm  ciii.  8,  9.)  '  The  Lord  turned  from 
the  fierceness  of  his  anger.''  (Josh.  vii.  26.)  '  In  wrath  remember 
mercy.'  (Hab.  iii.  2.)  'Though  thou  wast  angry,  thine  anger  is 
turned  away.'  (Isa.  xii.  \.)  '  Many  a  time  turned  he  his  anger 
away.'  (Psalm  Ixxvii.  38.) 

III.  '  I  will  punish  the  world  for  their  evil,  and  the  wicked  for 
their  iniquity. '(Isa.  xiii.  11.)  '  Behold  the  Lord  cometh  to  punish  the 
inhabitants  of  the  earth  for  their  iniquity.'  (Chr.  xxvi.  21.)  'Is  not 
destruction  to  the  wicked,  and  a  strange  punishment  to  the  workers 
of  iniquity  T  (Job  xxxi.  3.)  '  I  Avill  punish  you  according  to  the 
fruit  of  your  doings.'  (Jer.  xxi.  14.)  '  I  will  punish  you  for  all  your 
iniquities.'  (Amos  iii.  2.)  'If  ye  will  not  hearken  unto  me,  then  I 
will  punish  you  seven  times  more  for  your  sins.'  (Lev.  xxvi.  IS.') 
'  I  will  punish  all  that  oppress  them.'  (Isa.  xxx.  20.) 

Now,  which  am  I  to  believe,  God  or  man  1 

Your  miserable  philosophy  leads  you,  in  the  third  place,  totally  to 
deny  the  Scripture  doctrine  of  justification.  Indeed  you  do  not  ap- 
pear to  have  the  least  conception  of  the  matter  :  no,  not  even  to 
know  what  the  term  justification  means.     Accordingly  you  affirm, 

I.  "  Salvation  (which  as  all  divines  agree,  includes  both  justifica- 
tion and  sanctification)  is  nothing  else  but  to  be  made  like  Christ." 
(Sp.  of  Pr.  P.  I.  p.  53.)  2.  "  Regeneration  is  the  whole  of  man's 
salvation."  (P.  II.  p.  37.)  3.  "  Redemption  is  nothing  else  but  the 
life  of  God  in  the  soul."  (P.  I.  p.  79.)  4.  "  The  one  only  work  o( 
Chrisi  as  your  Redeemer  is,  to  raise  into  life  the  smothered  spark  of 
heaven  in  you."  (Sp.  of  Love,  P.  II.  p.  45.)  5.  "  He  is  our  atone- 
ment and  reconciliation  with  God,  because  by  him  we  are  set  again 
in  our  first  state  of  holiness."  (P.  II.  p.  86.)  6.  "The  atonement 
of  the  divine  wrath  or  justice,"  (a  mere  solecism,  on  which  your 
whole  reasoning  for  several  pages  is  built)  "  and  the  extinguishing  of 
sin  in  the  creature,  are  only  different  expressions  of  the  same  thing.'" 
(p.  106.)  (Nay  the  former  is  an  expression  of  nothing  :  it  is  flat 
nonsense.)  7.  "  All  that  Christ  does  as  an  atonement,  has  no  other 
operation  but  that  of  renewing  the  fallen  nature  of  man."  (p.  21.) 

Here  are  seven  peremptory  assertions.     But  till  they  are  fully 
proved,  I  cannot  give  up  my  Bible. 

But  you  grow  bolder  and  bolder ;  and  say,  "  The  satisfaction  of 
Christ  is  represented  in  all  our  systems  of  divinity,  as  a  satisfaction 


A  LETTEB   TO   THE   KEV.    ME.    LAW.  135 

iijade  to  God,  and  the  sufferings  and  death  of  Christ,  as  that  which 
could  only  avail  with  God  to  have  mercy  on  man.  Nay,  what  is  still 
worse,  if  possible,  the  ground,  and  nature,  and  efficacy  of  this  great 
transaction  between  God  and  man,  is  often  explained  by  debtor  and 
creditor  :  man  as  having  contracted  a  debt  with  God,  which  he 
could  not  pay,  and  God  as  havins;  a  right  to  insist  upon  the  payment 
of  it."  (p.  106.)  "There  is  no  wrath  in  God,  no  fictitious  atone- 
ment, no  folly  of  debtor  and  creditor."  (p.  131.)  "What  is  still 
worse  if  possible  !  Folly  of  debtor  and  creditor  !"  Surely  I  would 
not  have  spoken  thus,  unless  I  had  been  above  the  Son  of  God. 

'  After  this  manner  pray  3^e,  Forgive  us  our  debts  as  we  forgive 
Giir  debtors.'  (Matt.  vi.  9,  12.)  '  And  Jesus  said.  There  was  a  cer- 
tain creditor  which  had  two  debtors.'  (Luke  vii.  41.)  'The  king- 
dom of  heaven  is  likened  to  a  king  who  would  take  account  of  his 
servants.  And  one  was  brought  unto  him  who  ov.'ed  him  ten  thou- 
sand talents.  But  for  as  much  as  he  had  not  to  pay,  his  Lord  com- 
manded him  to  be  sold  and  all  that  he  had.  The  servant  fell  down, 
saying.  Lord,  have  patience  with  me.  And  his  lord  was  moved  with 
compassion,  and  forgave  him  the  debt.'  Yet  afterwards  on  his  un- 
i^iercifulness  to  his  fellow-servant,  he  retracted  that  foEgiveness ; 
*  and  delivered  him  to  the  tormentors,  till  he  should  pay  all  that  was 
due  unto  him.  So  likewise  shall  my  heavenly  Father  do  unto  you 
also,  if  ye  from  your  heart  forgive  not  every  one  his  brother  their 
trespasses  '  Matt,  xviii.  23,  &c. 

Is  not  a  man  here  represented  "  as  having  contracted  a  debt  with 
God,  which  he  cannot  pay  ?'■  And  God  "  as  having"  nevertheless 
"  a  right  to  insist  upon  the  payment  of  it  ]"  And  a  right,  '  if  he  hath 
Kot  to  pay,  of  delivering  him  to  the  tormentors?  And  is  it  not  ex- 
pressly asserted,  that  God  will,  in  some  cases,  claim  this  right,  and 
use  it  to  the  uttermost  ?  Upon  whom  then  lights  this  imputation  of 
folly,  and  of  what  is  still  worse  ?  '  Lord,  lay  not  this  sin  to  their 
charge !'  '  Forgive  them,  for  they  know  not  v/hat  they  do.' , 

But  if  the  Son  of  God  did  not  die  to  atone  for  our  sins,  what  did 
he  die  for  1 

Your  answer,  "  He  died,  1.  To  extinguish  our  own  hell  within 
us."  (Sp.  of  Pr.  P.  IL  p.  159.)  Nay,  the  Scripture  represents  this, 
not  as  the  first,  l>ut  the  second  end  of  his  death. 

"  2.  To  show  that  he  was  above  the  world,  death,  hell,  and  Satan." 
(p.  130,  lol.)  Where  is  it  written,  that  he  died  for  this  end? 
Gould  he  not  have  done  this  without  dying  at  all  1 

"  3.  His  death  was  the  only  possible  way  of  overcoming  all  the 
evil  that  was  in  fallen  man."  (p.  129.)  This  is  true,  supposing  that 
he  atoned  for  our  sins.  But  if  this  supposition  be  not  made,  his  death 
was  not  the  only  possible  way  whereby  the  Almighty  could  have 
overcome  all  things. 

"  4.  Through  this  he  got  power  to  give  the  same  victory  to  all 
his  brethren  of  the  human  race."  (p.  132.)  Had  he  not  this  power 
before  ?  Otherwise,  how  was  he  o  m,  '  He  that  is;  God  over  all; 
blessed  for  ever  V  If  Christ  died  for  no  other  ends  than  these,  what 
seed  was  there  of  his  being  more  than  a  creature  ? 


\3G  A   LETTER   TO   THE   REV.    MR.    LAW. 

As  you  seem  never  to  have  employed  your  thoughts  on  justifiea- 
tlon  or  redemption,  in  the  Scripture  sense,  I  beg  leave  to  subjoin  a 
plain  account  thereof,  written  by  a  wc  man  of  the  last  century. 

1.  * '  Christ  hath  acquired  for  us  a  right  to  eternal  life  by  his  sa- 
tisfaction and  meiits  alone.  Neither  our  repentance  nor  amend- 
ment,  can  be  any  satisfaction  for  sin.  It  is  only  'througl;  his  blood 
that  we  have  redemption.'  (Eph.  i.  7.)  This  alone  *  cleanseth  us 
from  all  sin.'  ( 1  John  i.  7. )  And  herein  '  was  the  love  of  God  mani- 
fested towards  us,  that  he  sent  his  Son  to  -be  the  propitiation  for  our 
sins.'  (1  John  iv.  9,  10.)  So  was  the  'Lord  oifr  righteousness/ 
(Jer.  xxiii.  6  ;)  without  which  we  coidd  not  have  been  justified.  As 
man  owed  his  Creator  the  perfect  ol:edience  of  his  whole  life,  or  a 
punisliment  proportioned  to  his  trapsgression,  it  wus  impossible  he 
could  satisfy  him,  by  a  partial  and  imperfect  obedience.  Neither 
could  he  merit  any  thing  from  him,  to  whom  he  owed  all  things. 
There  was  need,  therefore,  of  a  Mediator,  who  could  repair  the  im- 
mense wrong  he  had  done  to  the  Divine  Majest}  satisly  the  Supreme 
Judge,  who  had  pronounced  the  sentence  of  death  against  the  trans- 
gressors of  his  law,  suffer  in  the  place  of  his  people,  and  merit  for 
them  pardon,  holiness,  and  glory,  Accorclhigly  he  'gave  himself  a 
ransom  for  all.'  (1  Tim.  ii.  6  :)  and,  'by  himself  purged  our  sins/ 
(Heb.  i.  3.)  '  He  loved  us,  and  gave  himself  for  us,  an  offering 
and  a  sacrifice  to  God.'  (Eph.  v.  2.)  So  we  read,  '  God  raised  him 
from  the  dead  ;  who  was  delivered  for  o«r  offences,  and  raised  again 
for  our  justification  :'  because  our  Surety's  being  discharged,  by  the 
will  and  act  of  the  Judge  himself,  is  a  full  proof  that  he  has  paid  our 
whole  debt, 

2.  '  Nor  is  there  any  more  sure  way  to  the  imitation  of  Christ, 
than  faith  in  Christ  crucified,  in  him  '  who  suffered  for  us,  leaving  us 
an  example,  that  we  might  tread  in  his  steps :'  '  who  died  for  us, 
while  we  were  yet  enemies,  tliat  we  might  be  justified  by  his 
blood.'  (Rom,  v.  9.)  Yet  it  is  true  this  doctrine  finds  no  place  in 
those  who  are  proud  of  heart,  who  \o\e  their  own  reasonings,  and 
have  no  taste  for  'the  sincere  milL  of  the  word.'  But  it  is  precious 
to  them  who  feel  the  weight  of  tht  .:■  sins,  who  knov/  they  '  are  by  na- 
ture c'^ldren  of  wrath,'  and  at  the  same  time  utterly  incapable  either 
of  paying  the  debt,  of  rising  froiri  the  death  of  sin,  of  conquering 
themselves,  the  woild,  and  the  Devil,  or  oJ  meriiing  eternal  lilie. 

3.  '  The  01  igin  and  cause  of  our  redemption  is,  the  ineffable  love 
of  God  the  Father,  who  willed  to  i  edeem  iis  by  the  blood  of  his  own 
Son :  the  grace  of  the  Son,  who  freely  took  our  curse  upon  him, 
and  imparts  his  blessing  and  merits  to  us.  And  the  Holy  Spirit  who 
communicates  the  love  of  the  Father,  and  the  grace  of  the  Son  to 
our  hearts, 

<  When  we  speak  of  this,  and  of  the  satisfaction  of  Christ,  we 
speak  of  the  inmost  mystery  of  the  Christian  faith.     Therefore  aU 

*  Annae  Mariae  a  Schurman  *En\vpia,  Part  II.  p.  118j  &c> 


A   LETTER   TO   TUB   BEV.    MR.    LAAW  I6i 

Ae  inventions  of  men  ought  now  to  be  kept  at  the  utmost  distance  ; 
nor  can  any  thing  certain  be  established,  without  the  express  author- 
ity of  Scripture.  And  herein  is  offered  first  to  our  consideration, 
the  only  begotten  Son  of  God,  as  the  head  of  the  redeemed,  the 
righteous  servant  of  God,  who  by  the  '  knowledge'  of  himself  '  shall 
justify  many.'  (Isa.  liii.  11.)  Him  God  hath  constituted  the  '  Surety 
of  that  better  Covenant,'  (Heb.  vii.  22,)  the  covenant  of  grace. 
And  how  clearly  is  his  execution  of  this  office  described  in  the  fifty 
third  chapter  of  Isaiah  1  Where  the  prophet  describes  him  as  '  bear- 
ing our  griefs,'  or  sins,  'and  carrying  our  sorrows,'  (ver.  4.)  '  All 
we,'  says  he,  *like  sheep  have  gone  astray,  we  have  turned  every 
one  to  his  own  way  ;  and  the  Lord  hath  laid  on  him  the  iniquity  of 
us  all.'  (ver.  6.)  All  mankind  have  forsaken  God,  and  placed  their 
own  will  upon  his  throne,  and  so  were  liable  to  the  highest  punish- 
ment, when  the  Mediator  voluntarily  interposed  himself  between 
them  and  the  just  Judge.  And  the  incomprehensible  love  of  God 
that  he  might  spare  them,  '  spared  not  his  own  Son.'  This  is  shown 
in  those  words,  '  The  Lord  hath  laid  on  him  the  iniquity  of  us  all.'- 
It  was  on  this  account  that  '  he  was  oppressed  and  afflicted ;  and 
brought  as  a  lamb  to  the  slaughter,'  (ver.  7.)  while  God  '  made  him 
to  be  sin  for  us,  who  knew  no  sin,  that  we  might  be  made  the  right- 
eousness of  God  in  him.'  (2  Cor.  v.  21.)  This  is  expressed  in  the 
9th  and  10th  verses. — '  He  had  done  no  violence,  nor  was  any  de- 
ceit in  his  mouth.  Yet  it  pleased  the  Lord  to  bruise  him,'  when  he 
"'  made  his  soul  an  offering  for  sin.'  How  exactly  do  his  own  words 
agree  with  these  !  '  I  am  the  good  Shepherd,  and  I  lay  down  my  life 
for  the  sheep.'  (John  x.  14,  15.)  For  them 'was  he  taken  from 
prison  and  from  judgment,  and  cut  off  out  of  the  land  of  the  living.' 
(ver.  8.)  How  doth  God  herein  'commend  his  love  towards  us,  in 
delivering  up  his  own  Son  to  die  for  us  V  Yea,  God  '  was  pleased 
with  bruising  him,'  when  clothed  with  our  flesh,  and  bearing  our 
sins,  he  manifested  to  angels  and  men  his  infinite  love  of  divine  jus- 
tice, till  being '  made  obedient  unto  death,  even  the  death  of  the 
cross,'  he  satisfied  its  utm.ost  demand. 

'  It  was  then  '  God  was  pleased  to  bruise  him,'  when  '  he  made  his". 
soul  an  offering  for  sin.'  He  then  appeared  before  the  Judge  of  all^ 
under  <  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh,  and  for  sin,'  as  the  apostle  speaks. 
And,  therefore,  God  was  pleased  'to  condemn  sin  in  the  flesh,'  (Rom» 
"v^iii.  3,  4,)  to  '  bruise  him'  who  sustained  the  person  of  sinners.  But 
i\is  was  only  the  prelude  of  a  glorious  victory.  Therefore  the  pro- 
phet adds,  '  He  shall  see  his  seed,  he  shall  prolong  his  days,  and  the 
pleasure  of  the  Lord  shall  prosper  in  his  hand.'  (ver.  10.)  After  re- 
peating (ver.  11,)  the  sum  of  all,  '  He  shall  bear  their  iniquities,'  he 
subjoins  the  cause  of  his  reward,  (ver.  12,)  '  Because  he  poured  out 
his  soul  unto  death,  and  was  numbered  with  the  transgressors  :  for 
he  bore  the  sin  of  many,  and  made  intercession  for  the  transgres- 
sors.' 

'  The  fifth  verse,  of  which  I  have  not  yet  spokeii,  renders  this 
^eat  truth  still  more  evident.     <  He  v/^as  wounded  for  our  trans- 

N  2 


Ii38  A   LETTER   TO    THE   REV.    MR.    LAW. 

gressioiis,  he  was  bruised  for  our  iniquities ;  the  chastisement  of  oui 
peace  was  upon  him,  and  by  his  stripes  we  are  healed.'  He  loved 
his  own  body  less  than  his  mystical  body  the  church,  and  therefore 
gave  the  former  for  the  latter,  '  to  redeem  and  purchase  it  with  his 
own  blood,'  by  paying  himself  as  a  ransom  for  it.  Hereby  '  nailing 
the  handwriting  which  was  against  us  to  the  cross,  he  took  it  out  oi 
the  way,'  and  so  became  '  our  peace,' 

4.  '  From  all  which  it  appears,  that  Christ  was  not  only  a  pattern, 
hut  first  and  principally  the  surety  of  the  new  covenant,  yea,  a  sa- 
crifice and  a  victim,  for  the  sins  of  his  people  :  '  whom  God  hath  set 
forth  to  be  a  propitiation,  through  faith  in  his  blood.'  (Rom.  iii.  25.) 
And  that  precious  sacrifice  offered  on  the  cross,  is  the  very  centre  and 
marrow  of  the  gospel.  To  that  '  one  offering'  whereby  our  great 
High  Priest  '  hath  perfected  for  ever  them  that  are  sanctified,'  (Heb. 
X.  14,)  all  the  ancient  sacrifices  referred,  as  well  as  numberless  other 
types  and  figures.  '  All  these,'  says  the  apostle,  '  were  shadows  ol 
things  to  come,  but  the  body  is  Christ.'  (Col.  ii.  17.)  He  it  was. 
who  '  not  by  the  blood  of  bulls  and  goats,  but  by  his  own  blood,  en- 
tered into  the  holiest,  having  obtained  eternal  redemption  for  us.. 
(Heb.  ix.  12.)  In  consequence  of  this  we  are  accepted,  *  through 
the  offering  of  the  body  of  Christ  once  for  all.'  (chap.  x.  10.)  In 
all  the  ancient  types  and  figures  <  without  shedding  of  blood  there 
was  no  remission :'  which  intended  to  show,  there  never  could  be 
any  without  the  blood  of  the  great  Antitype  :  without  that  grand  pro- 
pitiatory sacrifice,  which  (like  the  figure  of  it)  was  to  be  offered 
".without  the  gate.' 

*  Indeed  the  whole  worship  of  the  Old  Testament  teaches  nothing 
else  but  the  satisfaction  made  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  and  our  re- 
conciliation with  God  thereby :  hence  he  is  styled  '  The  Lamb  of 
God  that  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world  ;'  with  a  view  to  the  pas- 
chal lamb,  and  the  other  lambs  that  were  offered  in  sacrifice  :  on 
which  account  the  inhabitants  of  heaven  likewise  '  give  glory  and 
sing  a  new  song,  because  he  hath  redeemed  them  unto  God  by  his 
blood,  out  of  every  tribe,  and  tongue,  and  people,  and  nation," 
Hev.  V.  9. 

5,  « To  this  might  be  added  the  numerous  figures  that  occur  in  the 
lives  of  the  old  patriarchs,  prophets,  and  kings.  But  it  may  suflice 
to  add  to  the  preceding  only  two  testimonies  more  of  the  manner  of 
our  redemption  by  a  proper  sacrifice  :  the  one  that  of  St.  Paul. 
Christ  '  hath  delivered  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law,  being  made  ,„ 
curse  for  us ;  as  it  is  written,  cursed  is  every  one  that  hangeth  on  a 
free.'  Gal.  iii.  1.  The  other  of  St.  Peter,  'Who  himself  bore  our 
sins,  in  his  own  body  on  the  tree.'  (1  Pet.  ii.  24.)  From  all  this 
abundantly  appears  the  substitution  of  the  Messiah  in  the  place  ol 
his  people,  thereby  atoning  for  their  sins,  and  restoring  them  to  the 
favour  of  God. 

<  These  are  the  points  which  are  so  vehemently  opposed  by  So- 
fl3inus  and  his  fjpllowers  ;  who  rob  Christ  of  the  principal  part  of  his 
priestly  office,  and  leave  him  only  that  of  interceding  for  us  by 


A.  LETTER    TO    THE    REV.    MR.    LAW,  130 

prayer :  as  if  any  intercession  were  worthy  of  Christ,  who  had 
not  his  full  satisfaction  and  propitiatory  sacrifice  for  its  foundation. 
Indeed  these  cannot  be  put  asunder,  as  sufficiently  appears  from  the 
words  cited  before,  '  He  bore  the  sin  of  many,  and  made  interces- 
sion for  the  transgressors :'  where  the  Holy  Ghost  closely  joins  his  in- 
tercession, with  his  satisfaction  made  by  sacrifice.  These  and  a 
thousand  other  solid  arguments  that  might  be  advanced  in  proof  of 
this  fundamental  doctrine,  overturn  all  the  cavils  that  tlow  from  cor- 
rupt reason,  which,  indeed,  are  weak  and  thin  as  a  spider's  web.' 

I  have  dwelt  the  longer  on  this  head,  because  of  its  inexpressible 
moment.  For  whether  or  not  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith 
be,  as  all  Protestants  thought  at  the  time  of  the  reformation,  Jlrticu- 
lus  stantis  vel  cadentis  Ecclesioi,  a  doctrine  without  which  there  can 
be  no  Christian  church  :  most  certainly  there  can  be  none  where  the 
whole  notion  of  justification  is  ridiculed  and  exploded  :  unless  it  be 
such  a  church  as  includes,  according  to  your  account,  every  child  of 
man  :  of  which  consequently  Turks,  Deists,  and  Pagans,  are  as  real 
members,  as  the  most  pious  Christian  under  the  sun,  I  cannot  but 
observe,  that  this  is  the  very  essence  of  Deism  ;  no  serious  Infidel 
need  contend  for  more.  I  would  therefore  no  more  set  one  of  this 
opinion  to  convert  Deists,  than  I  would  set  a  Turk  to  convert  Ma- 
hometans. 

.  As  every  one  that  is  justified  is  born  of  God,  lam  naturally  led  to 
consider,  in  the  next  place,  (so  far  as  it  is  delivered  in  the  tracts  now 
before  me,)  your  doctrine  of  the  neio-birth. 

"  In  the  day  that  Adam  ate  of  the  tree  he  died  :  that  is,  his  hea- 
venly spirit,  with  its  heavenly  body,  were  extinguished.  To  make 
that  heavenly  spirit  and  body  to  be  alive  again  in  man,  this  is  regene- 
ration." (Sp.  of  Prayer,  P.  I.  p.  9.)  O  no;  this  is  not;  nor  any 
thing  like  it.  This  is  the  unscriptural  dream  of  Behmen's  heated 
imagination. 

"  See  the  true  reason  why  only  tha  Son  of  God  could  be  our  Re- 
deemer. It  is  because  he  alone  could  be  able  to  bring  to  life  again 
that  celestial  spirit  and  body  which  had  died  in  Adam."  (ibid.)  Not 
so  :  but  he  alone  could  be  our  Redeemer,  because  he  alone,  '  by  that 
one  oblation  of  himself  once  offered,  could  make  a  sufficient  sacri- 
fice and  satisfaction  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world.' 

"  See  also  why  a  man  must  '  be  born  again  of  water  and  of  the 
Spirit.'  He  must  be  born  again  of  the  Spirit,  because  Adam's  hea- 
venly spirit  was  lost."  (ibid.)  Nay,  but  because  Adam  had  lost  the 
inward  image  of  God,  wherein  he  was  created.  And  no  less  than 
the  Almighty  Spirit  of  God  could  renew  that  image  in  his  soul. 

*'  He  must  be  born  of  water,  because  that  heavenly  body  which 
Adam  lost  was  formed  out  of  the  heavenly  materiality,  which  is  call- 
ed water."  (ibid.)  Vain  philosophy  !  The  plain  meaning  of  the  ex- 
pression, '  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water,'  is  neither  more  nor  less^ 
than  this,  '  Except  he  be  baptized.'  And  the  plain  reason  why  he 
ought  to  be  thus  born  of  water  is,  because  God  hath  appointed  it 
He  bath  appointed  it  as  an  outward  and  visible  sign  of  an  inward 


HO  A    LETTER   TO    THE   REV.   MR.  LAW 

and  spiritual  grace  :  which  grace  is,  '  a  death  unto  sin,  and  a  new- 
birth  unto  righteousness.' 

^  The  necessity  of  our  regaining  our  first  heavenly  body  is  the 
necessity,"  (I  presume  you  mean  the  ground  of  the  necessity,)  "of 
our  eating  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ."  (p.  10.)  Neither  can  I 
believe  this,  till  I  find  it  m  the  Bible.  1  am  there  taught  to  believe, 
that  our  '  spiritually  receiving  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,'  which 
is  most  eminently  done  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  is  necessary  to 
*  strengthen  and  refresh  our  souls,  as  our  bodies  are  by  the  bread 
and  wine.' 

"  The  necessity  of  having  again  our  first  heavenly  spirit  is  shown, 
by  the  necessity  of  our  being  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost."  (ibid.) 
No.  That  we  '  must  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost,'  implies  this 
and  no  more,  that  we  cannot  be  '  renewed  in  righteousness  and  true 
holiness,'  any  otherwise  than  by  being  overshadowed,  quickened, 
and  pjiimated  by  that  blessed  Spirit. 

"  Our  fall  is  nothing  else  but  the  falling  of  our  soul  from  its  hea- 
venly body  and  spirit,  into  a  bestial  body  and  spirit.  Our  redemp- 
tion," (you  mean,  our  new-birth)  "  is  nothing  else  but  the  regaining 
our  first  angelic  spirit  and  body."  (ibid.)  What  an  account  is  here 
of  the  Christian  redemption  !  How  would  Dr.  Tindal  have  smiled 
at  this  !  Where  you  say  redemption  is  nothing  else  but  the  life  ol 
God  in  the  soul,  you  allow  an  essential  part  of  it.  But  here,  you 
allow  it  to.be  nothing  else  but  that  which  is  no  part  of  it  at  all :  no- 
thing else  but  a  whim,  a  madman's  dream,  a  chimera,  a  mere  non- 
entity ! 

*'  This"  (angelic  spirit  and  body)  "  in  Scripture  is  called  our  new 
or  inward  man."  (ibid.)  The  inward  man  in  Scripture  means  one 
thing,  the  new  man  another.  The  former  means  '  the  mind  opposed 
to  the  body  :'  '  though  our  outward  man,'  our  body,  <  perish,  yet  the 
inward  man,'  the  mind  or  soul,  '  is  renewed  day  by  day.'  (2  Cor.  iv. 
16.)  The  latter  means  universal  holiness:  'put  off  the  old  man 
which  is  corrupt ;  and  put  on  the  new  man,  which,  after  God,  i? 
created  in  righteousness  and  true  hohness.'  (Eph.  iv.  22 — 24.)  But 
neither  does  the  one  nor  the  other  ever  mean  this  angelic  spirit  and 
body. 

You  yourself  know  better  what  the  new-birth  is.  lou  describe 
it  better,  though  still  with  amazing  queerness  of  language,  where 
you  say,  "  Man  hath  the  light  and  water  of  an  outward  nature  to- 
quench  the  wrath  of  his  own  life,  and  the  light  and  meekness  of 
Christ,  as  a  seed  born  in  him,  to  bring  forth  anew  the  image  of 
God." 

But  it  is  not  strange,  that  you  speak  so  confusedly  and  darkly,  as 
you  generally  do,  of  the  New-Birth,  seeing  you  seem  to  have  no. 
conception  of  that  faith  whereby  we  are  born  again.  This  abun- 
dantly appears  from  your  frank  declaration,  "  We  are  neither  saved 
by  faith  nor  by  works."  (Part  1 1,  p.  36.)  Flatly  contrary  to  the  de- 
claration of  St.  Paul,  '  By  grace  we  are  saved  through  faith.' 

To  put  the  matter  out  of  dispute,  you  declare  that  you  mean  by 


A   LETTER    TO    THE    ilEV.    MR.    LAW.  141 

iiaith,  "a  desire  to  be  one  with  Christ."  (P.  I.  p.  50.)  Again.  "The 
desire  of  turning  to  God  is  the  coming  of  Christ  into  the  soul.  This 
faith  will  save  thee."  (p.  76.)  So  in  your  judgment,  saving  faith  is 
"  a  desire  of  coming  to  God,  or  of  being  one  with  Christ."  I  know 
the  contrary  from  experience.  I  had  this  desire  many  years  before 
I  even  knew  what  saving  faith  was. 

Faith  is  so  far  from  being  only  this  desire,  that  it  is  no  desire  at 
all.  It  differs  from  all  desire  toto  genere,  although  doubtless  all  good 
desires  accompany  it.  It  is,  according  to  St.  Paul,  an  e>,er%ei,  an 
evidence  or  conviction,  (which  is  totally  different  from  a  desire,)  of 
things  not  peen  :  a  supernatural,  a  divine  evidence  and  conviction  of  the 
things  which  God  hath  revealed  in  his  word ;  of  this  in  particular, 
that  the  Son  of  God  hath  loved  me,  and  given  himself  for  me.  Who- 
soever hath  this  faith  is  born  of  God  Whosoever  thus  believeth  is 
saved  ;  and  if  he  endure  therein  '  to  the  end,'  shall  be  saved  ever- 
lastingly. 

The  process  of  this  work  in  the  soul,  of  the  present  salvation 
which  is  through  faith,  you  likewise  describe  confusedly  and  ob- 
scurely. The  sum  of  what  you  say  is  this:  "The  painful  sense  of 
what  you  are,  kindled  into  a  working  state  of  sensibility  by  the  light 
of  God,  is  the  light  and  fire  from  whence  the  spirit  of  prayer  pro- 
ceeds. In  its  first  kindling  nothing  is  found  but  pain,  wrath,  and 
darkness.  And,  therefore,  its  first  prayer  is  all  humility."  (P.  II. 
p.  172.) 

Would  it  not  be  more  intelligible,  if  one  had  said,  'The  convin- 
cing Spirit  of  God,  gives  you  to  see  and  feel,  that  you  are  a  poor, 
undone,  guilty,  helpless  sinner.  At  the  same  time,  he  incites  you  to 
cry  for  help  to  him  who  is  mighty  to  save.'  This  is  true.  But  it  is 
not  true,  that  in  the  first  kindling  of  this  fire,  in  plain  terms,  during 
the  first  convictions,  "nothing  is  found  but  pain,  wrath,  and  dark- 
ness." Very  often  there  are  found  even  in  the  first  conviction,  sweet 
gleams  of  light,  touches  of  joy,  of  hope,  and  of  loVe,  mixed  with 
sorrow  and  fear.  Much  less  is  it  true,  that  the  first  prayer  of  an 
aAvakened  sinner  is  all  humility,  (ibid.)  On  the  contrary,  a  sinner 
newly  awakened,  has  always  more  or  less  confidence  in  himself,  in. 
what  he  is,  or  has,  or  does,  and  will  do :  which  is  not  humility,  but 
dov/nright  pride.  And  this  mingles  itself  with  all  his  prayer,  till  the 
day-star  is  just  rising  in  his  heart. 

You  add,  "  This  prayer  is  met  by  the  divine  love,  and  changed 
into  hymns,  and  songs,  and  thanksgivings."  (ibid.)  It  is  so,  when 
'  being  justified  by  faith,  we  have  peace  with  God  through  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.'  "  The  state  of  fervour  melts  away  all  earthly  pas- 
sions and  affections,  aud  leaves  no  inclination  in  the  soul,  but  to  de- 
light in  God  alone."  (ibid.)  It  is  ciertain,  this  is  the  genuine  effect 
of  'the  love  of  God  shed  abroad  in  the  heart :'  which  expression  of 
St.  Paul,  I  suppose,  means  the  same  with  this  state  of  fervour. 
"  Then  its  prayer  changes  again,  and  continually  stands  in  fulness 
of  faith,  and  purity  of  love,  in  absolute  resignation,  to  do  and  be 
what  aud  how  his  Beloved  pleaseth.     This  is  the  last  state  of  the 


142  A  LETTER  TO  THE  EEV.  MB.  LAW. 

spirit  of  prayer,  and  is  our  highest  union  with  God,  in  this  hfe.'" 
(p.  173.) 

Assuredly  it  is  :  fulness  of  faith,  '  beholding  with  open  face  the 
glory  of  the  Lord  ;'  purity  of  love,  free  from  all  mixture  of  its  con- 
trary, yielding  the  whole  heart  to  God ;  absolute  resignation,  ex- 
eluding  every  degree  of  self-will,  sacrificing  every  thought,  word, 
and  work  to  God.  But  do  we  change  directly,  from  our  first  love, 
into  the  highest  union  with  God  ?  Surely  not.  There  is  an  inter- 
mediate state  between  that  of  babes  in  Christ,  and  that  of  fathers. 
You  yourself  are  very  sensible  there  is  ;  although  you  here  speak  as 
if  there  were  not. 

You  go  on.  "  People  who  have  long  dAvelt  in  this  fervour  are 
frighted  when  coldness  seizes  upon  them,^'  (p.  174.)  That  is,  when 
they  lose  it,  when  their  love  grows  cold.  And  certainly,  well  they 
may,  if  this  fervour  was  to  bring  them  to  "  fulness  of  faith,  purity 
of  love,  and  absolute  resignation."  Well  may  they  be  affrighted,  if 
that  fervour  be  lost,  before  "it  has  done  its  work  " 

Indeed  the}?  might  be  affrighted,  when  it  is  not  lost,  if  that  which 
follows  be  true.  "  Fervour  is  good  and  ought  to  be  loved  ;  but  dis- 
tress and  coldness  are  better."  (p.  176.)  "  It  brings  the  soul  nearer 
to  God,  than  the  fervour  did."  (p.  175.)  The  fervour,  you  said, 
<*  brought  the  soul  to  its  highest  union  with  God  in  this  hfe."  Can 
€oldness  do  more  ?  Can  it  bring  us  to  an  union,  higher  than  the 
highest  ? 

To  explain  this,  you  say,  "  The  fervour  made  the  soul  delight  in 
God.  But  it  was  too  much  an  own  delight.  It  was  a  fancied  self- 
holiness,  and  occasioned  rest  and  satisfaction  in  itself,,  in  a  spiritual 
self"  (ibid.)  Either  fervour  does  bring  us  to  purity  of  love,  and 
absolute  resignation,  or  not.  To  say  it  does  not,  contradicts  what 
you  said  but  now.  And  if  it  does,  we  cannot  say,  "  Coldness  does 
the  work  which  fervour  did,  in  an  higher  degree." 

I  should  nof  insist  so  long  on  these  glaring  inconsistencies,  were 
not  the  doctrine  you  are  here  labouring  to  support,  absolutely  incon- 
sistent with  that  of  St.  Paul,  and  naturally  productive  of  the  most 
fatal  consequences.  St.  Paul  asserts,  the  present  'kingdom  of  God' 
in  the  soul  '  is  righteousness,  and  peace,  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost.' 
He  coatinually  teaches,  that  these  which  God  hath  joined,  man  ought 
not  to  put  asunder :  that  peace  and  joy  should  never  be  separated 
from  righteousness,  being  the  divine  means  both  of  preserving  and 
increasing  it,  and  thai  we  may,  yea,  ought  to  '  rejoice  evermore,'  till 
« the  God  of  peace  sanctifies  us  wholly."  But  if  these  things  are 
so,  then  "  Distress  and  coldness  are  not  better"  than  fervent  love 
and  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Again.  The  doctrine,  that  it  is  better  and  more  profitable  for  the 
soul,  to  lose  its  sense  of  the  love  of  God  than  to  keep  it,  is  not  only 
unscriptural,  but  naturally  attended  with  the  most  fatal  consequences. 
It  directly  tends  to  obstruct,  if  not  destroy  the  work  of  God  in  the 
heart,  by  causing  men  to  bless  themselves  in  those  ways,  which 
.3amp  the  fervour  of  their  affections  ;  and  to  imagine  they  are  con -. 


A   LETTEE   TO  THE   BEV.  MR.  LAW.  143 

siderably  advanced  in  grace,  when  they  have  grieved,  yea,  quenched 
the  Spirit.  Nay,  but  let  all  who  now  feel  the  love  ot'  God  in  their 
hearts,  and  '  walk  in  the  light,  as  he  is  in  the  light,'  labour  by  every 
possible  mean  to  '  keep  themselves  in  the  love  of  God.'  Let  them 
he  ever .'  fervent  in  spirit.'  Let  them  '  rejoice  evermore,'  and  stir 
up  the  gift  of  God,  which  is  in  them.  And  if  at  any  time,  "  Cold- 
ness seizes  upon  them,"  let  them  be  assured,  they  have  '  grieved  the 
Spirit  of  God.'  Let  them  be  affrighted :  let  them  fear  lest  they 
sink  lower  and  lower :  yea,  into  total  deadness  and  hardness  of 
heart.  At  the  peril  of  their  souls,  let  them  not  rest  in  darkness,  but 
examine  themselves,  search  out  their  spirits,  cry  vehemently  to  God, 
and  not  cease,  till  he  restores  the  'light  of  his  countenance. 

5.  If  this  doctrine  of  the  unprofitableness  of  coldness  above  fer- 
vour, directly  tends  to  make  believers  easy,  while  they  are  sliding 
back  into  unbelief,  you  have  another  which  tends  as  directly  to  make 
them  easy  who  never  believed  at  all,  I  mean,  that  of  Christ  in  every 
man.  What  you  advanced  on  this  head,  I  desire  next  to  consider, 
as  the  importance  of  it  requires.  ' 

"  The  birth  of  Christ  is  already  begun  in  every  one.  Jesus  is 
already  within  thee,  (whoever  thou  art,)  living,  stirring,  calling', 
knocking  at  the  door  of  thy  heart."  (Spirit  of  Prayer,  part  I.  p.  55.) 
"Every  one  has  Christ  in  his  spirit,  lying  there  as  in  a  state  of  in- 
sensibility and  death."  (Spirit  of  Love,  part  IL  p.  34.)  But  he  is 
living  for  all  that.  And  though  "  in  a  state  of  insensibility,"  he  is 
''  stirring,  calling,  knocking  at  the  door  of  the  heart !" 

"Something  of  heaven"  (you  use  this  phrase  as  equivalent  with 
Christ)  "lies  in  every  soul  in  a  state  of  inactivity  and  death."  (p.  35.) 
"All  the  holy  nature,  tempers,  and  Spirit,  of  Christ,  lie  hid  as  a 
seed  in  thy  soul."  (Spirit  of  Prayer,  part  L  p.  68.)  But  are  they 
active  or  inactive  1  -  Living  and  stirring,  or  in  a  state  of  insensibility 
and  death? 

"  Thou  art  poor,  and  Wind,  and  naked,  and  miserable,  while  all 
the  peace  and  joy  of  God  are  within  thee."  (p.  74.)  This  is  most 
wonderful  of  all !  Are  these  within  him  who  is  dead  in  sin  1  Who 
is  a  "  stranger  to  all  that  is  holy  and  heavenly  ?"  If  they  are,  how 
can  he  be  miserable,  who  has  "  all  the  peace  and  joy  of  God  withui 
him?'  Will  you  say,  "They  are  in  him,  but  he  does  not  feel  them?' 
Nay,  then  they  are  not  in  him.  I  have  peace  in  me,  no  longer  than 
I  feel  peace.     I  feel  joy,  or  I  have  it  not. 

"  See  here  the  extent  of  the  Cathohc  church  of  Christ !  It  takes 
in  all  the  world."  (p.  56.)  So  Jews,  Mahometans,  Deists,  Hea- 
thens, are  all  members  of  the  church  of  Christ !  Should  we  not 
add  devils  too  1     Seeing  these  also  are  to  dwell  with  us  in  heaven  ! 

"  Poor  sinner,  Christ  dwelleth  in  the  centre,  the  fund,  or  bottom 
of  thy  soul."  (p.  59.)  What  is  this "?  What  is  either  the  centre,  the 
top,  or  bottom  of  a  spirit  1 

"  When  Adam  fell,  this  centre  of  his  soul  became  a  prisoner  in 
an  earthly  animal.  But  from  the  moment  God  spoke  Christ  into 
Adam,  all  the  treasures  of  the  divine  nature,  the  light  and  Spirit 


il44  A  LETTER  TO  THE  BEV.  ME.  LAW. 

of  God  came  again  into  man,  into  the  centre  of  his  soul."  (p.  60.) 
I  cannot  find  in  the  Bible  when  that  was  j  when  God  spoke  Christ 
into  Adam. 

We  come  now  to  the  proofs  of  these  strong  assertions. 

And,  1.  "  No  faith  could  ever  begin,  unless  every  man  had  Christ 
ill  him."  (Spirit  of  Love,  part  II.  p.  34.)  This  proposition  needs 
just  as  much  proof  itself,  as  that  which  it  is  brought  to  prove. 

3.  "  Unless  the  remains  of  the  perfect  love  of  God  were  in  every 
man,  it  would  be  impossible  he  should  ever  love  God  at  all."  (p.  38.) 
Why  so  1  Cannot  God  give  his  love  this  moment  to  one  who  never 
loved  him  before  1 

3.  "Unless  Christ  was  hidden  in  the  soul,  there  could  not  be  the 
least  beginning  of  man's  salvation.  For  what  could  begin  to  desire 
heaven,  unless  something  of  heaven  were  hid  in  the  soul  ?"  What 
could  ?  W^hy  any  soul,  which  had  nothing  but  hell  in  it  before  the 
moment  grace  was  infused  from  above. 

4.  "  The  ten  commandments  lay  hid  in  men's  souls,"  (how  ?) 
''  till  called  into  sensibility  by  writing  them  on  stone.  Just  so  Christ 
lies  in  the  soul,  till  awakened  by  the  mediatorial  office  of  the  Holy 
Jesus."  (p.  35.)  This  is  only  assertion  still,not  proof.  But  what.do 
you  mean  by  the  mediatorial  office  of  Christ  ?  And  how  is  "  Christ 
awakened  by  .the  mediatorial  office  of  the  Holy  Jesus  *?" 

5.  "  The  sea  cannot  be  moved  by  any  other  wind  than  that  which 
had  its  birth  from  the  sea  itself."  (p.  40.)  I  think,  it  can.  I  have 
seen  it  "  moved  by  a  wind,  which  had  its  birth  from  the  land." 

6.  "  The  musician  cannot  make  his  instrument  give  any  other  me- 
lody than  that  which  lies  hid  in  it,  as  its  own  inward  state."  (p.  42.) 
Did  the  tune  then  Ue  hid  in  the  trumpet,  before  the  trumpeter  blew  ? 
And  was  this  tune,  or  another,  or  all  that  ever  were  and  will  be 
played  on  it,  the  inward  state  of  the  trumpet? 

"  No  more  can  the  mind  have  any  grief  or  joy,  but  that  which  is 
from  itself,"  (p.  43.)  An  unhappy  comparison!  For  the  instrument 
can  have  no  melody  or  sound  at  aWfrom  itself:  and  most  unhappily 
applied  to  the  operations  of  God  upon  the  souls  of  men.  For  has 
God  no  more  power  over  my  soul,  than  I  have  over  a  musical  instru- 
ment 1 

These  are  your  arguments  to  prove  that  Christ  is  in  every  man ; 
a  blessing  which  St.  Paul  thought  was  peculiar  to  believers.  He 
said,  'Christ  is  in  you,  except  ye  be  reprobates,  (unbelievers.) 
You  say,  Christ  is  in  you,  whether  ye  be  reprobates  or  not.  '  If  any 
man  hath  not  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  he  is  none  of  his,'  saith  the  Apos- 
tle. Yea,  but  "  every  man,"  saith  Mr.  Law,  "  hath  the  Spirit  of 
God.  The  Spirit  of  Christ  is  in  every  soul."  (Spirit  of  Prayer,  P. 
I.  p.  63.)  '  He  that  hath  not  the  Son  of  God  hath  not  life,'  saith  St. 
John.  But  Mr.  Law  saith,  "  Every  man  hath  the  Son  of  God." 
Sleep  on  then,  ye  Sons  of  Belial,  and  take  your  rest :  ye  are  all 
safe  :  for  '  he  that  hath  the  Son  hath  life.' 

There  can  hardly  be  any  doctrine  under  heaven  more  agreeable 
to  flesh  and  blood  :  nor  any  which  more  directly  tends,  to  prevent 


A  LETTER  TO  THE    REV.  MR.  LAW.  146 

tiie  very  dawn  of  conviction,  or  at  least  to  hinder  its  deepening  in  the 
soul,  and  coming  to  a  sound  issue.  None  more  naturally  tends  to 
keep  men  asleep  in  sin,  and  to  lull  asleep  those  who  begin  to  be 
awakened.  Only  persuade  one  of  this,  "  Christ  is  already  in  thy 
heart;  thou  hast  now  the  inspiration  of  his  Spirit :  all  the  peace  and 
joy  of  (rod  are  within  thee,  yea,  all  the  holy  nature,  tempers,  and 
Spirit  of  Christ :"  and  you  need  do  no  more  :  the  syren  song  quiets 
all  his  sorrow  and  fear.  As  soon  as  you  have  sewed  this  pillow  to 
his  soul,  he  sinks  back  into  the  sleep  of  death. 

VI.  But  you  have  made  an  ample  amends  for  this,  by  providing 
so  short  and  easy  away  to  heaven  ;  not  a  long,  narrow,  troublesome, 
round-about  path,  like  that  described  in  the  Bible  :  but  one  that  will 
as  compendiously  save  the  soul,  as  Dr.  Ward's  pill  and  drop  heal  the 
body :  a  way  so  plain,  that  they  who  follow  it  need  no  Bible,  no  hu- 
man teaching,  no  outward  means  whatever  ;  being  every  one  able  to 
stand  alone  :  every  one  sufficient  for  himself ! 

"  The  first  step  is.  To  turn  wholly  from  yourself,  and  to  give  up 
yourself  wholly  unto  God."  (P.  11.  p.  22.)  If  it  be,  no  flesh  living 
shall  be  saved.  How  grievously  do  we  stumble  at  the  threshold  ? 
Do  you  seriously  call  this.  The  first  step?  "  To  turn  wA-o%  from  my- 
self, and  give  up  myself  wholly  unto  God?"  Am  I  then  to  step  first  on 
the  highest  round  of  the  ladder?  Not  unless  you  turn  it  upside  down. 
The  way  to  heaven  would  be  short  indeed,  if  the  first  and  the  last 
step  were  all  one  :  if  we  were  to  step  as  far  the  moment  we  set  out, 
as  we  can  do  till  we  enter  into  glory. 

But  what  do  you  mean  by  giving  up  myself  to  God  1  You  answer, 
"  Every  sincere  wish  and  desire  after  Christian  virtues,  is  giving  up 
yourself  to  him,  and  the  very  perfection  of  faith."  Spirit  of  Love,  P. 
II.  p.  217. 

Far,  very  far  from  it ;  I  know  from  the  experience  of  a  thousand 
persons,  as  well  as  from  Scripture,  and  the  very  reason  of  the  thing, 
that  a  man  may  have  sincere  desires  after  all  these,  long  before  he  at- 
tains tliem.  He  may  sincerely  wish,  to  give  himself  up  to  God,  long 
before  he  is  able  so  to  do.  He  may  desire  this,  not  only  before  he 
has  the  perfection,  but  before  he  has  any  degree  of  saving  faith. 

More  marvellous  still  is  that  which  follows,  "  You  may  easily  and 
immediately,  by  the  mere  turning  of  your  mind,  have  all  these  virtues, 
patience,  meekness,  humihty,  and  resignation  to  God."  (p.  212.) 
Whio  may  ?  Not  I.  Not  you.  Not  any  that  is  born  of  a  woman  : 
as  is  proved  by  the  daily  experience  of  all,  that  know  what  patience, 
meekness,  or  resignation  meahs. 

But  how  shall  I  know  whether  I  have  faith  or  not  1^1  will  give 
you  an  infallible  touchstone.  Retire  from  all  conversation  only  for 
a  month.  Neither  write,  nor  read,  nor  debate  any  thing  with  your- 
self. Stop  all  the  former  workings  of  your  heart  and  mind,  and 
stand  all  this  month  in  prayer  to  God.  If  your  heart  cannot  give  it- 
self up  in  this  manner  to  prayer,  be  fully  assured  you  are  an  Infidel 
Spirit  of  Prayer,  P.  II.  p.  163. 

Vol.  9.— O 


146  A   LETTER   TO   THE   REV.    MR.    LAW. 

If  this  be  so,  the  Infidels  are  a  goodly  company  !  If  every  man 
be  of  that  number,  who  cannot  "  stop  all  the  former  workings  of  his 
heart  and  mind,  and  stand  thus  in  prayer  to  God  for  a  month  to- 
gether." 

But  I  would  gladly  know,  by  what  authority  you  give  us  this 
touchstone  1  And  how  you  prove  it  to  be  infallible  ?  I  read  .nothing 
like  it  in  the  oracles  of  God.  I  cannot  find  one  word  there  of  "  re- 
frainingfrom  all  conversation,  from  writing  and  reading  for  a  month." 
(I  fear,  you  make  no  exception,  in  favour  of  pubhc  worship,  or 
reading  the  word  of  God.)  Where  does  the  Bible  speak  of  this  ?  Of 
"  stopping  for  a  month,  or  a  day,  all  the  former  workings  of  my 
heart  and  mind?"  Of  refraining  from  all  converse  with  the  children 
of  God,  and  from  reading  his  word  "?  It  would  be  no  wonder  should 
any  man  make  this  wnscriptural  (if  not  anti-scriptural)  experiment,  if 
Satan  were  permitted  to  work  in  him  '  a  strong  delusion,'  so  that 
he  should  '  believe  a  lie.' 

Nearly  related  to  this  touchstone  is  the  direction  which  you  give 
elsewhere.  "  Stop  all  self-activity  ;  be  retired,  silent,  passive,  and 
humbly  attentive  to  the  inward  light."  P.  I.  p.  77.  82. 

But  beware  *  the  light  which  is  in  thee  be  not  darkness ;'  as  it 
surely  is,  if  it  agree  not  with  '  the  law  and  the  testimony.'  "  Open 
thy  heart  to  all  its  impressions," — If  they  agree  with  that  truly  infal- 
lible touchstone.  Otherwise  regard  no  impression  of  any  kind,  at 
the  peril  of  thy  soul — "  wholly  stopping  the  workings  of  thy  own 
reason  and  judgment.''  I  find  no  such  advice  in  the  word  of  God. 
And  I  fear  they  who  stop  the  workings  of  their  reason,  lie  the  more 
open  to  the  workings  of  their  imagination. 

There  is  abundantly  greater  danger  of  this  when  we  fancy  we  have 
no  longer  need  to  "  be  taught  of  man."  To  this  your  late  writings 
directly  lead.  One  who  admires  them  will  be  very  apt  to  cry  out, 
"  I  have  found  all  that  I  need  know  of  God,  of  Christ,  of  myself,  of 
heaven,  of  sin,  of  grace,  and  of  salvation."  (P.  II.  p.  4.)  And  the 
rather,  because  you  yourself  affirm  roundly,  "  when  once  we  appre- 
hend the  all  of  God,  and  our  own  nothingness,"  (which  a  man  may 
persuade  himself  he  does,  in  less  than  four  and  twenty  hours,)  "  it 
brings  a  kind  of  infallibility  into  the  soul  in  which  it  dwells :  all 
that  is  vain,  and  false,  and  deceitful,  is  forced  to  vanish  and  flee  be- 
fore it."  (P.  I.  p.  95.)  Agreeably  to  which  you  tell  your  conyert, 
"  You  have  no  questions  to  ask  of  any  body."  (Sp,  of  Love,  P.  II. 
p.  218.)  "And  if,  notwithstanding  this,  he  will  ask,  "  But  how  am 
I  to  keep  up  the  flame  of  love  ?"  You  answer,  "  I  wonder  you  should 
want  to  know  this.  Does  a  blind,  or  sick,  or  lame  man  want  to 
know,  how  he  should  desire  sight,  health,  or  limbs  ?"  (Spirit  of 
Prayer,  p.  1G5.)  No  ;  but  he  wants  to  know,  how  he  should  attain, 
and  how  he  should  keep  them.  And  he  who  has  attained  the  love 
of  God,  may  still  want  to  know  how  he  shall  keep  it.  And  he  may 
still  inquire,  "  May  I  not  take  my  own  passions,  or  the  suggestions 
of  evil  spirits  for  the  workings  of  the  Spirit  of  God  V*  (p.  198.)  To 
this  you  answer,  "  Every  man  knows,  when  he  is  governed  by  the 


A   LETTER    TO   THE    REV.  MR.    LAW.  147 

spirit  of  wrath,  envy,  or  covetousness,  as  easily  and  as  certainly  as 
he  knows  when  he  is  hungry."  (ibid.)  Indeed  he  does  not ;  neither 
as  easily  nor  as  certainly.  Without  great  care,  he  may  take  wrath 
to  be  pious  zeal,  envy  to  be  virtuous  emulation ;  and  covetousness  to 
be  Christian  prudence,  or  laudable  frugality.  "  Now  the  knowledge 
of  the  Spirit  of  God  in  yourself  is  as  perceptible  as  covetousness." 
Perhaps  so  ;  for  this  is  as  difficultly  perceptible  as  any  temper  of  the 
human  soul. — "  And  liable  to  no  more  delusion.''  Indeed  it  need 
not ;  for  this  is  liable  to  ten  thousand  delusions. 

You  add,  "  His  Spirit  is  more  distinguishable  from  all  other  spirits, 
than  any  of  your  natural  affections  are  from  one  another."  (p.  199.) 
Suppose  joy  and  grief.  Is  it  more  distinguishable  from  all  other 
spirits,  than  these  are  from  one  another  1  Did  any  man  ever  mistake 
grief  for  joy  ?  No,  not  from  the  beginning  of  the  world.  But  did 
none  ever  mistake  nature  for  grace  ?  Who  will  be  so  hardy  as  to 
affirm  this  1 

But  you  set  your  pupil  as  much  above  the  being  taught  by  books, 
as  the  being  taught  by  men.  "  Seek,  say  you,  for  help  no  other 
way,  neither  from  men,  nor  books,  but  wholly  leave  yourself  to  God." 
Sp.  of  Love,  P.  II.  p.  225. 

But  how  can  a  man  "  leave  himself  wholly  to  God,"  in  the  total 
neglect  of  his  ordinances  1  The  old  Bible  way  is,  to  "leave  ourselves 
wholly  to  God,"  in  the  constant  use  of  all  the  means  he  hath  ordain- 
ed. And  I  cannot  yet  think  the  new  is  better,  though  you  are 
fully  persuaded  it  is.  "  There  are  two  ways,  you  say,  of  attaining 
goodness  and  virtue ;  the  one  by  books  or  the  ministry  of  men,  the 
other  by  an  inward  birth.  The  former  is  only  in  order  to  the  latter." 
This  is  most  true,  that  all  the  externals  of  religion,  are  in  order  to 
the  renewal  of  our  souls  in  righteousness  and  true  holiness.  But  it 
is  not  true,  that  the  external  way  is  one,  and  the  internal  way  an- 
other. There  is  but  one  scriptural  way,  wherein  we  receive  inward 
grace,  through  the  outward  means  which  God  hath  appointed. 

Some  might  think  that  when  you  advised,  "Not  to  seek  help  from 
books,"  you  did  not  include  the  Bible.  But  you  clear  up  this,  where 
you  answer  the  objection,  of  your  not  esteeming  the  Bible  enough. 
You  say,  "  How  could  you  more  magnify  John  the  Baptist,  than  by 
going  from  his  teaching,  to  be  taught  by  that  Christ,  to  whom  he  di- 
rected you^  Now  the  Bible  can  have  no  other  office  or  power,  than 
to  direct  you  to  Christ.  How  then  can  you  more  magnify  the  Bible 
than  by  going  from  its  teaching,  to  be  taught  by  Christ  1"  So  you 
set  Christ  and  the  Bible  in  tlat  opposition  to  each  other  !  And  is  this 
the  way  we  are  to  learn  of  him  1  Nay,  but  we  are  taught  of  him, 
not  by  going  from  the  Bible,  but  by  keeping  close  to  it.  Both  by 
the  Bible  and  by  experience  we  know,  that  his  word  and  his  Spirit 
act  in  connexion  with  each  other.  And  thus  it  is,  that  by  Christ 
continually  teaching  and  strengthening  him  through  the  Scripture, 
« The  man  of  God  is  made  perfect,  and  thoroughly  furnished  for 
every  good  word  and  work.' 

According  to  your  veneration  for  the  Bible,  is  your  regard  for  pub- 


148  A    LETTER    TO    THE   REV.   MR.    LAW. 

lie  worship  and  for  the  Lord's  Supper,  *  Christ,  you  say,  is  the  churcln 
or  temple  of  God  within  thee.  There  the  Supper  of  the  Lamb  is 
kept.  When  thou  art  well  grounded  in  this  inwaid  worship,  thou 
wilt  ha^e  learned  to  live  unto  God  above  time  and  place.  For  every 
day  will  be  Sunday  to  thee ;  and  wherever  thou  goest,  thou  wilt 
have  a  priest,  a  church,  and  an  altar  along  with  thee."  Spirit  of 
Prayer,  P.  I.  p.  73. 

The  plain  inference  is,  thou  wilt  not  need  to  make  any  difference 
between  Sunday  and  other  days.  Thou  wilt  need  no  other  church 
than  that  which  thou  hast  always  along  with  thee  ;  no  other  Supper, 
worship,  priest,  or  aiiar.  Be  well  grounded  in  this  inward  worship, 
and  it  supersedes  all  the  rest.  This  is  right  pleasing  to  flesh  and 
blood,  and  I  could  most  easily  believe  it,  if  I  did  not  believe  the  Bible. 
But  that  teaches  me  inwardly  to  worship  God,  as  at  all  times,  and 
in  all  places,  so  particularly  on  his  own  day,  in  the  congregation  ot 
his  people,  at  his  altar,  and  by  the  ministry  of  those  his  servants 
whom  he  hath  given  for  this  very  thing,  '  for  the  perfecting  of  the 
saints,'  and  with  whom  he  will  be  '  to  the  end  of  the  world.' 

Extremely  dangerous  therefore  is  this  other  gospel,  which  leads 
quite  wide  of  the  gospel  of  Christ.  And  what  must  the  consequence 
be,  if  we  thus  break,  yea,  and  teach  men  so,  not  one  only,  neither 
the  least  of  his  commandments  *?  Even  that  we  shall  be  called  the 
least  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven.'  God  grant  this  may  not  fall  on 
you  or  me  ! 

7.  However,  whether  we  have  a  place  in  heaven  or  not,  you  arc 
very  sure  we  shall  have  none  in  hell.  For  there  is  no  hell  in  rertim 
natura ;  no  such  place  in  the  universe.  You  declare  this  over  and 
over  again,  in  a  great  variety  of  expressions.  It  may  suffice  to  men- 
tion two  or  three.  "  Hell  is  no  penalty  prepared  or  inflicted  by 
God.  (Spirit  of  Prayer,  P.  H.  p.  33.)  Damnation  is  only  that  which 
springs  up  within  you.  (Spirit  of  Love,  P.  H.  p.  47.)  Hell  and 
damnation  are  nothing  but  the  various  operations  of  self."  (Sp.  of 
Prayer,  P.  L  p.  79.) 

1  rather  incline  to  the  account  published  a  few  years  ago,  by  a 
wise  and  pious  man,  (the  late  bishop  of  Cork,)  where  he  is  speaking 
of  the  improvement  of  human  knowledge  by  revelation.  Some  of 
his  words  are,  '  Concerning  future  punishments,  we  learn  from  re- 
velation only,  1.  That  they  are  both  for  soul  and  body,  which  are 
distinguished  in  Scripture  by  '  the  worm  that  dieth  not,  and  the  fire 
which  never  shall  be  quenched:'  and  accordingly  we  are  bid  to  '  fear 
him  who  is  able  to  destroy  both  body  and  soul  in  hell.'  (Proce- 
dure, &c.  of  Human  Understanding.)  Upon  which  I  shall  only  re- 
mark, that  whereas  we  find  by  experience,  the  body  and  soul  in  this 
life  are  not  capable  of  suffering  the  extremity  of  pain  and  anguish  at 
the  same  time,  insomuch  that  the  greatest  anguish  of  mind  is  lost 
and  diverted  by  acute  and  pungent  pain  of  body :  yet  we  learn 
from  Scripture,  that  in  hell  the  wicked  will  be  subject  to  extreme 
torments  of  both  together.'  (p.  150.) 

2.  '  That  the  chief  cause  of  tlieir  eternal  misery  will  be,,  aii 


A    LETTER   TO    THE   REV.   MR.    LAW.  149 

eteraal  exclusion  from  the  beatific  vision  of  God.  This  exclusion 
seems  to  be  the  only  punishment  to  which  we  can  now  conceive  a  pure 
spirit  liable.  And  according  as  all  intelligent  beings  are  at  a -less  or 
greater  distance  from  this  fountain  of  all  happiness,  so  they  are  ne- 
cessarily more  or  less  miserable  or  happy. 

3.  That  one  part  of  those  punishments  will  be  by  fire,  than  which 
Ave  have  not  any  revelation  more  express  and  positive.  And  as  it  is 
an  instance  of  great  goodness  in  God,  that  the  joys  of  heaven  are 
represented  to  us,  under  figurative  images  of  light,  and  glory,  and  a 
kingdom,  and  that  the  substance  shall  exceed  the  utmost  of  our 
conceptions :  so  it  is  an  argument  of  his  strict  justice,  that  future 
punishments  are  more  literally  threatened  and  foretold. 

4.  '  The  Eternity  of  these  punishments  is  revealed  as  plainly  as 
words  can  express  it.  And  the  difficulty  of  that  question,  "  What 
proportion  endless  torments  can  bear  to  momentary  sins,"  is  quite  re- 
moved by  considering,  that  the  punishments  denounced  are  not  sanc- 
tions entirely  arbitrary,  but  are  withal  so  many  previous  warnings  or 
declarations  of  the  natural  tendency  of  sin  itself.  So  that  an  unre- 
penting  sinner  mast  be  miserable  in  another  fife  by  a  necessity  of 
nature.  Therefore  he  is  not  capable  of  mercy  ;  since  there  never 
can  be  an  alteration  of  his  condition,  without  such  a  change  of  the 
whole  man,  as  would  put  the  natural  and  settled  order  of  the  crea- 
tion out  of  course." 

Doubtless  this  eminent  man  (whose  books  on  the  Human  Under- 
standing,  and  on  Divine  Jlnalogy,  I  would  earnestly  recommend  to 
all  who  either  in  whole  or  in  part  deny  the  Christian  Revelation,) 
grounded  his  judgment  both  of  the  nature  and  duration  of  future 
punishments  on  these  and  the  like  passages  of  Scripture. 

'  If  we  sin  wilfully  after  we  have  received  the  knowledge  of  the 
truth,  there  remaineth  no  more  sacrifice  for  sins  ;  but  a  certain  fear- 
ful looking  for  of  judgment  and  fiery  indignation,  which  shall  devour 
the  adversaries.'  <  He  that  despised  Moses's  law  died  without  mer- 
cy :  of  how  much  sorer  punishment  shall  he  be  thought  worthy, 
who  hath  trodden  under  foot  the  Son  of  God  ]'  '  For  we  know 
him  that  hath  said.  Vengeance  belongeth  unto  me,  I  will  recompense. 
It  is  a  fearful  thing  to  fall  iiito  the  hands  of  the  living  God.'  Heb.  x. 
26—31. 

And  let  not  any,  who  five  and  die  in  their  sins,  vainly  hope  to  es- 
cape his  vengeance.  '  For  if  God  spared  not  the  angels  that  sinned, 
but  cast  them  down  to  hell,  and  delivered  them  into  chains  of  dark- 
ness, to  be  reserved  unto  judgment' — '  The  Lord  knoweth  how  to 
reserve  the  unjust  unto  the  day  of  judgment  to  be  punished.'  (2 
Pet.  ii.  4 — 0.)  In  that  day,  peculiarly  styled  'The  Day  of  the 
Lord,  they  that  sleep  in  the  dust  of  the  earth  shall  awake  :  some  to 
everlasting  life,  and  some  to  everlasting  shame  and  contempt.'  (Dan. 
xii.  2.)  Among  the-latter  will  all  those  be  found,  who  are  now  by 
their  obstinate  impenitence,  <  treasuring  up  to  themselves  wrath 
against  the  day  of  wrath  and  revelation  of  the  righteous  judgment 
of  God  :  who  will  then  render  '  indignation  and  wrath,  tribulation 

O  2 


ioO  A    LETTER    TO   THE    KEV.    MR.    LA\f, 

and  anguish  upon  every  soul  of  man  that  doth  evil.'  (Rom.  ii.  5 — 9.)' 
He  hath  declared  the  very  sentence  which  he  will  then  pronounce 
on  all  'the  workers  of  iniquity,  '  Depart,  ye  cursed,  into  everlasting 
fire,  prepared  for  the  Devil  and  his  angels.'  (Matt.  xxv.  41.)  And 
in  that  hour  it  will  be  executed :  being  '  east  into  outward  dark- 
ness, where  is  wailing  and  gnashing  of  teeth,'  (ver.  30. ;  they  '  will 
be  punished  with  everlasting  destruction,  from  the  presence  of  the 
Lord  and  from  the  glory  of  his  power.'  (2  Thess.  i.  9.)  A  punish- 
ment not  only  without  end,  but  likewise  without  intermission.  For 
when  once  '  they  are  cast  into  that  furnace  of  fire,'  that  *  lake  oi 
fire  burning  with  brimstone,  the  worm'  gnawing  their  soul  *  dieth 
not,  and  the  fire'  tormenting  their  body  'is  not  quenched.'  So  that 
'•  they  have  no  rest  day  or  night ;  but  the  smoke  of  their  torment 
ascendeth  up  for  ever  and  ever.' 

Now  thus  much  cannot  be  denied,  that  these  texts  speak  as  if 
there  were  really  such  a  place  as  hell,  as  if  there  were  a  real  fire 
there,  and  as  if  it  would  remain  for  ever.  I  would  then  ask  but 
one  plain  question.  If  the  case  is  not  so,  why  did  God  speak  as  if 
it  was  ]  Say  you,  "  To  aftright  men  from  sin  ?"  What,  by  guile  1 
By  dissimulation  1  By  hanging  out  false  colours  1  Can  you  possibly 
ascribe  this  to  the  God  of  truth  ?  Can  you  believe  it  of  him  ?  Can 
you  conceive  the  Most  High  dressing  up  a  scare-crow,  as  we  do  to 
fright  children  1  Far  be  it  from  him.  If  there  be  then  any  such 
fraud  in  the  Bible,  the  Bible  is  not  of  God.  And,  indeed,  this  must 
be  the  result  of  all :  if  there  be  no  unquenchable  fire,  no  everlasting 
burnings,  there  is  no  dependence  on  those  writings,  wherein  they  are 
so  expressly  asserted,  nor  on  the  eternity  of  heaven,  any  more  than 
of  hel).  So  that  if  we  give  up  the  one,  we  must  give  up  the  other- 
No  hell,  no  heaven,  no  revelation  ! 

In  vain  you  strive  to  supply  the  place  of  this,  by  putting  purgatory 
in  its  room ;  by  saying,  "  These  virtues  must  have  their  perfect 
work  in  you,  if  not  before,  yet  certainly  after  death,  (Sp.  of  Love, 
F.  II.  p.  232.)  Every  thing  else  must  be  taken  from  you  by  fire, 
either  here  or  hereafter."  (ibid.)  Poor,  broken  reed  !  Nothing 
will  "  be  taken  from  you"  by  that  fire  which  is  '  prepared  for  the 
Devil  and  his  angels,'  but  all  rest,  all  joy,  all  comfort,  all  hope.  For 
'  the  worm  dieth  not,  and  the  fire  is  not  quenched.' 

I  have  now,  Sir,  delivered  my  own  soul.  And  I  have  used  great 
plainness  of  speech  ;  such  as  I  could  not  have  prevailed  on  myself 
to  use  to  one  whom  I  so  much  respect,  on  any  other  occasion. 

O  that  your  latter  Avorks  may  be  more  and  greater  than  your  first ! 
Surely  they  would,  if  you  could  ever  be  persuaded  to  study,  instead 
of  the  writings  of  Tauler  and  Behmen,  those  of  St.  Paul,  James, 
Peter,  and  John ;  to  spew  out  of  your  mouth  and  out  of  your 
heart  that  vain  philosophy,  and  speak  neither  higher  nor  lower  things, 
neither  more  nor  less  than  the  Oracles  of  God  :  to  renounce,  despise, 
abhor  all  the  high  flown  bombast,  all  the  unintelligible  jargon  of  the 
mystics,  and  come  back  to  the  plain  religion  of  the  Bible,  We  love  hif>n^ 
because  he  first  loved  us. 

London,  Jan.  6.  1756. 


A  LETTER 

TO    THE 

REV.  MR.  TOOGOOD, 

OF  EXETER ; 
OCCASIONED    BY    HIS 

DISSENT    FROM    THE    CHURCH    OF   ENGLAND   FULLY 
JUSTIFIED. 


Sir, 

IF  you  fairly  represent  Mr.  White's  arguments,  they  are  liable  to 
much  exception.  But  whether  they  are  or  not,  your  answers  to 
them  are  far  from  unexceptionable.  To  the  manner  of  the  whole 
I  object ;  you  are  not  serious  :  you  do  not  write  as  did  those  excel- 
lent men,  Mr.  Baxter,  Mr.  Howe,  Dr.  Calamy,  who  seem  always  to 
speak  not  laughing  but  weeping.  To  the  matter  I  object.  That  if 
your  argument  hold,  as  it  is  proposed  in  your  very  titlepage,  if  "  a 
dissent  from  our  church  be  the  genuine  consequence  of  the  allegiance 
due  to  Christ,"  then  all  who  do  not  dissent,  have  renounced  that  al- 
legiance, and  are  in  a  state  of  damnation  ! 

I  have  not  leisure  to  consider  all  that  you  advance,  in  proof  of  this 
severe  sentence.  I  can  only  at  present  examine  your  main  argument, 
which  indeed  contains  the  strength  of  your  cause.  "  My  separation 
from  the  Church  of  England,"  you  say,  "  is  a  debt  I  owe  to  God^ 
and  an  act  of  allegiance  due  to  Christ,  the  only  Lawgiver  in  the 
church."  p.  2. 

Again,  "  The  controversy  turns  upon  one  single  point,  Has  the 
church  poicer  to  decree  rites  and  ceremonies  ?  If  it  has  this  power, 
then  all  the  objections  of  the  Dissenters,  about  kneeling  at  the  Lord's 
Supper,  and  the  hke  are  impertinent ;  if  it  has  no  power  at  all  of 
this  kind,  yea,  if  Christ  the  great  Lawgiver  and  King  of  the  church, 
hath  expressly  commanded,  that  no  power  of  this  kind  shall  ever  be 
claimed  or  ever  be  yielded  by  any  of  his  followers :  then  the  dis- 
senters will  have  honour  before  God  for  protesting  against  such 
usurpation."  p.  3. 

I  join  issue  on  this  single  point :  "  If  Christ  hath  expressly  com- 
manded, that  no  power  of  this  kind  shall  ever  be  claimed,  or  ever 
yielded  by  any  of  his  followers :"  Then  are  all  who  yield  it,  all 
churchmen,  in  a  state  of  damnation,  as  much  as  those  who  '  deny 


152  A  LETTER  TO   MR.    TOOGOOD. 

the  Lord  that  bought  them.'     But  if  Christ  hath  not  expressly  com- 
manded this,  we  may  go  to  church,  and  yet  not  go  to  hell. 

To  the  point  theji.  The  power  I  speak  of  is,  a  power  of  decreeing 
rites  and  ceremonies^  of  appointing  such  circumstantials  (suppose)  of 
public  worship  as  are  in  themselves  purely  indifferent,  being  no  way 
determined  in  Scripture. 

And  the  question  is,  "  Hath  Christ  expressly  commanded,  that 
this  power  shall  never  be  claimed^  nor  ever  yielded  by  any  of  his  fol- 
lowers?'    This  I  deny.     How  da  you  prove  itl 

Why  thus.  "  If  the  Church  of  England  has  this  power,  so  has 
the  Church  of  Rome."  (p.  4.)  Allowed.  But  this  is  not  to  the 
purpose.     I  want  "  the  express  command  of  Christ." 

You  say,  "  Secondly,  The  persons  who  have  this  power  in 
England,  are  not  the  clergy,  but  the  .parliament."  (p.  8,  9.)  Per- 
haps so.  But  this  also  strikes  wide.  Where  is  the  "  express  com- 
mand of  Christ  ?' 

You  ask,  "  Thirdly,  How  came  the  civil  magistrate  by  this 
power  1  (p.  11.)  Christ  commands  us  to  'call  no  man  on  earth 
lather  and  master,'  that  is,  to  acknowledge  no  authority  of  any  in 
matters  of  religion."  'p.  12.)  At  length  we  are  come  to  the  express 
command,  which,  according  to  your  interpretation,  is  express 
enough  :  "  That  is,  acknowledge  no  authority  of  any  in  matters  of 
religion  :"  own  no  power  in  any  to  appoint  any  circumstances  df 
public  worship,  any  thing  pertaining  to  decency  and  order.  But  this 
interpretation  is  not  allowed.     It  is  the  very  point  in  question. 

We  allow,  Christ  does  here  expressly  command  to  acknowledge 
no  such  authority  of  any,  as  the  Jews  paid  their  Rabbles,  whom 
they  usually  styled,  either  fathers  or  masters :  implicitly  believing 
all  they  affirmed,  and  obeying  all  they  enjoined.  But  we  deny,  that 
he  expressly  commands,  to  acknowledge  no  authority  of  governors, 
in  things  purely  inditFerent,  whether  they  relate  to  the  worship  of' 
God,  or  other  roatteis. 

You  attempt  to  prove  it  by  the  following  words,  *  One  is  your 
Master'  and  Lawgiver,  even  Christ:  'and  all  ye  are  brethren;' 
(Matt,  xxiii.  8,  9  ;)  "all  Christians  ;  having  no  dominion  over  one 
another."  True  :  no  such  dominion  as  their  Rabbles  claimed  :  but 
in  all  things  indifferent,  Christian  Magistrates  have  dominion.  As  to 
your  inserting,  and  Lawgiver,  in  the  preceding  clause,  you  have  no 
authority  from  the  text:  for  it  is  not  plain,  that  our  Lord  is  here 
speaking  of  himself  in  that  capacity.  Aija85-x«A«5,  the  word  here  ren- 
dered master,  you  well  know,  conveys  no  such  idea.  It  should  ra- 
ther have  been  translated,  teacher.  And  indeed  the  whole  text 
primarily  relates  to  doctrines. 

—  But  you  cite  another  text :  'The  princes  of  the  Gentiles  exercise 
dominion  over  them  :  but  it  shall  not  be  so  among  you:'  (Matt.  xx. 
25.)  Very  good  :  that  is.  Christian  pastors,  shall  not  exercise  such 
dominion  over  their  flocks,  as  Heathen  princes  do  over  their  subjects. 
Most  sure  :  but  without  any  violation  of  this,  they  may  appoint  how 
things  shall  be  done  decently  and  in  order,  ^' 


A   LETTEH  lO  MU.   tOOGOOD,  163 

''  But  Christ  is  the  sole  Lawgiver,  Judge,  and  Sovereign  in  his 
church."  (p.  13.)  He  is,  the  sole  Sovereign,  Judge,  and  Lawgiver. 
But  it  does  not  follow  (what  you  continually  infer)  that  there  are  no 
subordinate  judges  therein:  nor,  that  there  are  none  who  have  power, 
to  make  regulations  therein  in  subordination  to  him.  King  George 
is  sovereign,  judge,  and  lawgiver,  in  these  realms.  But  are  there  no 
subordinate  judges  "i  Nay,  are  there  not  many  who  have  power  to 
make  rules  or  laws  in  their  own  little  communities  ?  And  how  does 
this  " invade  his  authority  and  throne'?'"'  Not  at  all ;  unless  they  con- 
tradict the  laws  of  his  kingdom, 

"  However,  he  alone  has  authority  to  fix  the  terms  of  communion 
for  his  followers  or  church,  (ibid.)  And  the  terms  he  has  fixed  no 
men  on  earth  have  authority  to  set  aside  or  alter."  This  I  allow 
(although  it  is  another  question)  none  has  authority  to  exclude  from 
the  church  of  Christ,  those  who  comply  with  the  terms  which  Christ 
has  fixed.  But,  not  to  admit  into  the  society  called  The  Church  of 
England,  or,  not  to  administer  the  Lord's  Supper  to  them,  is  not 
the  same  thing  with  "  excluding  men  from  the  church  of  Christ :" 
unless  this  society  be  The  whole  church  of  Christ,  which  neither  you 
nor  I  will  affirm.  This  society  therefore  may  scruple  to  receive 
those  as  members,  who  do  not  observe  her  rules  in  things  indifferent, 
without  pretending  "  to  set  aside  or  alter  the  terms  which  Christ  has 
fixed"  for  admission  into  the  Christian  church  :  and  yet  without 
"  lording  it  over  God's  heritage,  or  usurping  Christ's  throne."  Nor 
does  all  "the  allegiance  we  owe  him,"  at  all  hinder  our  obeying  them 
that  have  the  rule  over  us,  in  things  of  a  purely  indifferent  nature. 
Rather,  our  allegiance  to  him,  requires  our  obedience  to  them.  In 
being  "  their  servants"  thus  far  we  are  "  Christ's  servants."  We 
obey  his  general  command,  by  obeying  our  governors  in  particular 
instances. 

Hitherto  you  have  produced  no  express  command  of  Christ  to  the 
contrary.  Nor  do  you  attempt  to  show  any  such,  but  strike  ofl' 
from  the  question  for  the  twelve  or  fourteen  pages  following.  But 
after  these  you  say,  (p.  26,)  The  subjects  of  Christ  are  expressly 
commanded  to  receive  nothing  as  parts  of  religion,  which  are  only 
commandments  of  men."  (Matt.  xv.  9.)  We  grant  it:  but  this  is 
not  a  command,  not  to  '  obey  those  who  have  the  rule  over  us.' 
And  we  must  obey  them  in  things  indifferent,  or  not  at  all.  For  in 
things  which  God  hath  forbidden,  should  such  be  enjoined,  we  dare 
not  obey.     Nor  need  they  enjoin  what  God  hath  commanded. 

Upon  the  whole  we  agree,  that  Christ  is  the  only  supreme  Judge  and 
Lawgiver  in  the  church  :  I  may  add,  and  in  the  world  :  for  '  there  is 
no  power,'  no  secular  power,  but  of  God  :  of  God  who  «  was  mani- 
fested in  the  flesh,  who  is  over  all,  blessed  for  ever.'  But  we  do 
not  at  all  agree  in  the  inference  which  you  would  draw  therefrom, 
namely,  that  there  is  no  subordinate  judge  or  lawgiver  in  the  church. 
You  may  just  as  well  infer.  That  there  is  no  subordinate  judge  or  law- 
giver in  the  world.    Yea  there  is,  both  in  the  one  and  the  other. 


154  A    LETTER   TO  MR.  TOOGOOP. 

And  in  obeying  these  subordinate  powers^  we  do  not,  as  you  aver, 
renounce  the  supreme  :  no,  but  we  obey  them  for  his  sake. 

We  beUeve,  it  is  not  only  innocent,  but  our  bounden  duty  so  to 
do :  in  all  things  of  an  indifferent  nature  to  <  submit  ourselves  to 
every  ordinance  of  man ;'  and  that  for  the  Lord's  sake  :  because 
we  think,  he  has  not  forbidden,  but  expressly  commanded  it.  There- 
fore "as  a  genuine  fruit  of  our  allegiance  to  Christ,"  we  '  submit,' 
both  '  to  the  king  and  governors  sent  by  him,'  so  far  as  possibly  we 
can,  without  breaking  some  plain  command  of  God.  And  you  have 
not  yet  brought  any  plain  command,  to  justify  that  assertion  that 
"  we  may  not  submit  either  to  the  king,  or  to  governors  sent  by  him, 
in  any  circumstances  relating  to  the  worship  of  God." 

Here  is  a  plain  declaration,  '  There  is  no  power  but  of  God  ;  the 
powers  that  exist  are  ordained  of  God.  Whosoever  therefore  re- 
sisteth  the  power,'  (without  an  absolute  necessity,  which  in  things 
indifferent  there  is  not,)  'resisteth  the  ordinance  of  God.'  And  here 
is  a  plain  command  grounded  thereon  ;  '  Let  every  soul  be  subject 
to  the  higher  powers.'  Now  by  what  Scripture  does  it  appear. 
That  we  are  not  to  be  subject  in  any  thing  pertaining  to  the  worship 
of  God  ]  This  is  an  exception  which  we  cannot  possibly  allow, 
%vithout  clear  warrant  from  Holy  Writ.  And  we  apprehend,  those 
of  the  Church  of  Rome  alone,  can  decently  plead  for  such  an  ex- 
ception. It  does  not  sound  well  in  the  mouth  of  a  Protestant,  to 
claim  an  exemption  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  civil  powers,  in  all 
matters  of  religion,  and  in  the  minutest  circumstance  relating  to  the 
church. 

Another  plain  command  is  that  mentioned  but  now :  '  Submit 
yourselves  to  every  ordinance  of  man  for  the  Lord's  sake.'  And 
this  we  shall  think  ourselves  hereby  fully  authorized  to  do,  in  things 
of  a  religious  as  well  as  a  civil  nature,  till  you  can  produce  plain, 
explicit  proof  from  Scripture,  that  we  must  submit  in  the  latter,  but 
not  in  the  former.  We  cannot  find  any  such  distinction  in  the  Bible ; 
and  till  we  find  it  there,  we  cannot  receive  it.  But  must  believe 
our  allegiance  to  Christ  requires  submission  to  our  governors  in  all 
things  indifferent. 

This  I  speak,  even  on  supposition,  that  the  things  in  question  were 
enjoined  merely  by  the  king  and  parliament.  If  they  were,  what 
then  1  Then  I  would  *  submit  to  them  for  the  Lord's  sake.'  So 
that  in  all  your  parade,  either  with  regard  to  king  George  or  queen 
Anne,  there  may  be  wit,  but  no  wisdom  :  no  force,  no  argument, 
till  you  can  support  this  distirsction,  from  plain  testimony  of  Scrip- 
ture. 

Till  this  is  done,  it  can  never  be  proved,  that  "  a  dissent  from  the 
Church  of  England  (whether  it  can  be  justified  from  other  topics  or 
not)  is  the  genuine  and  just  consequence,  of  the  allegiance  which  is 
due  to  Christ,  as  the  only  Lawgiver  in  the  church."  As  you  pro- 
posed to  "  bring  the  controversy  to  this  short  and  plain  issue,  to  let 
it  turn  on  this  single  point :"  I  have  done  so  :  I  have  spoke  to  this 
alone  ;  although  I  could  have  said  something  on  many  other  points^ 


A   TREATISE   ON   BAPTISM,  loi.' 

which  you  have  advanced  as  points  of  the  utmost  certainty,  althougli 
they  are  far  more  easily  affirmed  than  proved.  But  I  waive  them  for 
the  present :  hoping  this  may  suffice,  to  show  any  fair  and  candid 
inquirer,  That  it  is  very  possible  to  be  united-  to  Christ  and  to  the 
Church  of  England  at  the  same  time  :  that  we  need  not  separate 
from  the  church,  in  order  to  preserve  our  allegiance  to  Christ ;  but 
may  be  firm  members  thereof,  and  yet  '  have  a  conscience  void  of 
offence  toward  God  and  toward  man.' 

I  am,  Sir, 

Your  very  humble  Servant, 

John  Wesley. 
Bristol,  Jan.  10,  1758. 


A  TREATISE  ON  BAPTISM. 


CONCERNING  Baptism  I  shall  inquire.  What  it  is  :  What 
benefits  we  receive  by  it :  AVhether  our  Saviour  designed  it  to  re- 
main always  in  his  church  :  And  who  are  the  proper  subjects  of  it  ? 

1.  1.  What  it  is.  It  is  the  initiatory  sacrament,  which  enters  us 
into  covenant  with  God.  It  was  instituted  by  Christ,  who  alone 
has  power  to  institute  a  proper  sacrament,  a  sign,  seal,  pledge,  and 
means  of  grace,  perpetually  obligatory  on  all  Christians.  We  know 
not  indeed  the  iexact  time  of  irs  institution  ;  but  we  know  it  was 
long  before  our  Lord's  Ascension.  And  it  was  instituted  in  the 
room  of  circumcision.  For  as  that  was  a  sign  and  seal  of  God's 
covenant,  so  is  this. 

2.  The  matter  of  this  sacrament  is  water  ;  which  as  it  has  a  na- 
tural power  of  cleansing,  is  the  more  fit  for  this  symbolical  use. 
Baptism  is  performed  by  washing,  dipping,  or  sprinkling  the  person, 
in  the  Name  of  the  Father,  teon,  and  Holy  Ghost,  who  is  hereby 
devoted  to  the  ever  blessed  Trinity.  I  say  by  washing,  dipping,  or 
sprinkling ;  because  it  is  not  determined  in  Scripture,  in  which  of 
these  ways  it  shall  be  done,  neither  by  any  express  precept,  nor  by 
any  such  example  as  clearly  proves  it ;  nor  by  the  force  or  meaning 
of  the  word  baptize. 

3.  That  there  is  no  express  precept  all  calm  men  allow.  Neither 
is  there  any  conclusive  example.  John's  baptism  in  some  things 
agreed  with  Christ's,  in  others  differed  from  it.  But  it  cannot  be 
certainly  proved  from  Scripture,  that  even  John's  was  performed 
by  dipping.  It  is  true,  he  baptized  in  Enon,  near  Salim, '  where 
there  was  much  water.'  But  this  might  refer  to  breadth  rather  than 
depth;  since  a  narrow  place  would  not  have  been  sufficient  for  so 
great  a  multitude.     Nor  can  it  be  proved,  that  the  baptism  of  our 


156  A   TREATISE   ON   BAPTISM. 

Saviour,  or  that  administered  by  his  disciples  was  by  immersion.  No. 
nor  that  of  the  eunuch  baptized  by  Philip  ;  though  '  they  both  went 
down  to  the  water  :'  lor  that  going  doxcn  may  relate  to  the  chariot, 
and  implies  no  determinate  depth  of  water.  It  might  be  up  to 
their  knees,  it  might  not  be  above  their  ankles. 

4.  And  as  nothing  can  be  determined  from  Scripture  precept  or 
example,  so  neither  from  the  force  or  meaning  of  the  word.  For 
the  words  baptize  and  baptism  do  not  necessarily  imply  dipping,  but 
are  used  in  other  senses  in  several  places.  Thus  we  read,  that  the 
Jews  *  were  all  baptized  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea,'  (1  Cor.  x.  2.) 
but  they  were  not  plunged  in  either.  They  could,  therefore,  be  only 
sprinkled  by  drop^  of  the  sea-water,  and  refreshing  dews  from  the 
cloud  :  probably  intimated  in  that,  '  Thou  sentest  a  gracious  rain 
upon  thine  inheritance,  and  refreshedest  it  when  it  was  weary :' 
(Psalm  Ixviii.  9.)  Again,  Christ  said  to  his  two  disciples,  'Ye  shall 
be  baptized  with  the  baptism  that  I  am  baptized  with  :'  (Mark  x.  38.) 
but  neither  he  nor  they  were  dipt,  but  only  sprinkled  or  washed 
with  their  own  blood.  Again  we  read,  Mark  vii.  4.  of  the  baptisms, 
(so  it  is  in  the  original,)  of  pots  and  cups,  and  tables  or  beds.  Now 
pots  and  cups  are  not  necessarily  dipped  when  they  are  washed. 
Nay,  the  Pharisees  washed  the  outsides  of  them  only.  And  as  for 
tables  or  beds,  none  will  suppose  they  could  be  dipped  :  here  then 
the  word  baptism  in  its  natural  sense,  is  not  taken  for  dipping,  but 
for  washing  or  cleansing.  And,  that  this  is  the  true  meaning  of  the 
word  baptize,  is  testified  by  the  greatest  scholars  and  most  proper 
judges  in  this  matter.  It  is  true,  we  read  of  being  '  buried  with 
Christ  in  baptism.'  But  nothing  can  be  inferred  from  such  a  figura- 
tive expression.  Nay,  if  it  held  exactly,  it  would  make  as  much  for 
sprinkling  as  for  plunging:  since  in  burying,  the  body  is  not  plunged 
through  the  substance  of  the  earth,  but  rather  earth  is  poured  or 
sprinkled  upon  it. 

5.  And  as  there  is  no  clear  proof  of  dipping  in  Scripture,  so  there 
is  very  probable  proof  of  the  contrary.  It  is  highly  probable,  the 
apostles  themselves  baptized  great  numbers,  not  by  dipping,  but  by 
washing,  sprinkling,  or  pouring  water.  This  clearly  represented  the 
cleansing  from  sin,  which  is  figured  by  baptism.  And  the  quantity 
of  water  used  was  not  material :  no  more  than  the  quantity  of  bread 
and  wine  in  the  Lord's  supper.  The  jailer,  '  and  all  his  house  were 
baptized  in  the  prison :  Cornelius  with  his  friends,  (and  so  several 
households,)  at  home.  Now  is  it  likely,  that  all  these  had  ponds  or 
rivers,  in  or  near  their  houses,  sufficient  to  plunge  them  all  ]  Every 
unprejudiced  person  must  allow,  the  contrary  is  far  more  probable. 
Again,  three  thousand  at  one  time  and  five  thousand  at  another, 
were  converted  and  baptized  by  St.  Peter  at  Jerusalem  ;  where  they 
had  none  but  the  gentle  waters  of  Siloam,  according  to  the  observa- 
tion of  Mr.  Fuller,  "  There  were  no  water-mills  in  Jerusalem,  be- 
cause there  was  no  stream  large  enough  to  drive  them."  The  place, 
therefore,  as  well  as  the  number,  makes  it  highly  probable  that  all 
these  were  baptized  by  sprinkling,  or  pouring,  and  not  by  immersion 


A   TREATISE    ON    BAPTISM.  16/ 

To  sum  up  all,  the  manner  of  baptizing  (whether  by  dipping  or 
sprinkUng)  is  not  determined  in  Scripture.  There  is  no  command 
for  one  rather  than  the  other.  There  is  no  example  from  v/hich  we 
can  conclude  for  dipping  rather  than  sprinkling.  There  are  proba- 
ble examples  of  both ;  and  both  are  equally  contained  in  the  natural 
meaning  of  the  word. 

II.  1.  What  are  the  Benefits  we  receive  by  Baptism  is  the  next 
point  to  be  considered.  And  the  first  of  these  is,  the  washing  awaj 
the  guilt  of  original  sin,  by  the  application  of  the  merits  of  Christ's 
death.  That  we  are  all  born  under  the  guilt  of  Adam's  sin,  and 
that  all  sin  deserves  eternal  misery,  was  the  unanimous  sense  of  the 
ancient  church,  as  it  is  expressed  in  the  ninth  article  of  our  own. 
And  the  Scripture  plainly  asserts,  that  we  were  '  shapen  in  iniquity, 
and  in  sin  did  our  mother  conceive  us.  That  we  were  all  by  nature 
children  of  wrath,  and  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins  :'  that  '  in  Adam 
all  died  :'  that  '  by  one  man's  disobedience  all  were  made  sinners  :' 
that  '  by  one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world,  and  death  by  sin  :  which 
came  upon  all  men ;  because  all  had  sinned.'  This  plainly  includes 
infants;  for  they  too  rfie ;  therefore,  they  have  sinned.  But  not  by 
actual  sin  :  therefore,  by  original :  else  what  need  have  they  of  the 
<leath  of  Christ  1  Yea,  '  Death  reigned  from  Adam  to  Moses  even 
over  those  who  had  not  sinned'  (actlially)  «  according  to  the  simili- 
tude of  Adam's  transgression.'  This,  which  can  relate  to  infants 
only,  is  a  clear  proof  that  the  whole  race  of  mankind  are  obnoxious 
both  to  the  guilt  and  punishment  of  Adam's  transgression.  But  '  as 
by  the  offence  of  one,  judgment  came  upon  all  men  to  c/ondemna- 
lion,  so  by  the  righteousness  of  one,  the  free-gift  came  upon  all  men, 
to  justification  of  life.  And  in  virtue  of  this  free-gift,  the  merits  of 
Christ's  life  and  death,  are  applied  to  us  in  baptism.  '  He  gave  him- 
self for  the  church,  that  he  might  sanctify  and  cleanse  it  with  the 
washing  of  water,  by  the  word:'  (Eph.  v.  25,  26.)  namely,  in  bap- 
tism, the  ordinary  instrument  of  our  justification.  Agreeably  to  this 
our  church  prays  in  the  baptismal  office,  that  the  person  to  be  bap- 
tized may  be  «  washed  and  sanctified  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  being 
delivered  from  God's  wrath,  receive  remission  of  sins,  and  enjoy  the 
everlasting  benediction  of  his  heavenly  washing :'  and  declares  in 
the  rubric  at  the  end  of  the  office,  '  It  is  certain,  by  God's  word, 
that  children  who  are  baptized,  dying  before  they  commit  actual  sin, 
are  saved.'  And  this  is  agreeable  to  the  unanimous  judgment  of  all 
the  ancient  fathers. 

2.  By  baptism  we  enter  into  covenant  Avith  God  ;  into  that  ever- 
lasting covenant,  which  he  hath  commanded  for  ever.  (Psal.  cix.  11.) 
That  new  covenant,  which  he  promised  to  make  with  the  spiritual 
Israel ;  even  to  '  give  them  a  new  heart  and  a  new  spirit,  to  sprinkle 
clean  water  upon  them,'  (of  which  the  baptismal  is  only  a  figure) 
'  and  to  remember  their  sins  and  iniquities  no  more  :'  in  a  word,  '  to 
be  their  God,'  as  he  promised  to  Abraham,  in  the  evangelical  cove- 
nant, which  he  made  with  him,  and  all  his  spiritual  offspring.  (Gen. 
xvii.  7,  8.)     And  as  circumcision  was  then  the  way  of  entering  intc 

Vol.  9.— P 


158  A  TEEATISE  ON  BAPTIsal. 

this  covenant,  so  baptism  is  now  :  which  is  therefore  styled  by  the 
apostle,  (so  many  good  interpreters  render  his  words,)  The  stipula- 
tion, contract,  or  covenant  of  a  good  conscience  with  God. 

3.  By  baptism  we  are  admitted  into  the  church,  and  consequently 
made  members  of  Christ,  its  head.  The  Jews  were  admitted  into 
the  church  by  circumcision,  so  are  the  Christians  by  baptism.  For 
'  as  many  as  are  baptized  into  Christ,'  in  his  name,  '  have'  thereby 
'put  on  Christ.'  (Gal.  iii.  27.)  That  is,  are  mystically  united  to 
Christ,  and  made  one  with  him.  For  '  by  one  Spirit  we  are  all  bap-= 
tized  into  one  body.'  (I  Cor.  xii.  13.)  Namely,  'the  church,  the 
body  of  Christ.'  (Eph.  iv.  12.)  From  which  spiritual,  vital  union 
with  him,  proceeds  the  influence  of  his  grace  on  those  that  are  bap- 
tized ;  as  from  our  union  with  the  church,  a  share  in  all  its  privi- 
leges, and  in  all  the  promises  Christ  has  made  to  it. 

4.  By  baptism  we  who  were  '  by  nature  children  of  wrath,'  are 
made  the  children  of  God,  And  this  regeneration,  which  our  church 
in  so  many  places  ascribes  to  baptism,  is  more  than  barely  being  ad- 
mitted into  the  church,  though  commonly  connected  therewith ; 
being  <  grafted  into  the  body  of  Christ's  church,  we  are  made  the 
children  of  God  by  adoption  and  grace.'  This  is  grounded  on  the 
plain  words  of  our  Lord,  John  iii.  5,  '  Except  a  man  be  born  again 
of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdoin  of  God.' 
By  water,  then,  as  a  mean,  the  water  of  baptism,  we  are  regenerated 
or  born  again  ;  whence  it  is  also  called  by  the  apostle,  '  The  wash- 
ing of  regeneration.'  Our  church,  therefore,  ascribes  no  greater 
virtue  to  baptism,  than  Christ  himself  has  done.  Nor  does  she  as- 
cribe it  to  the  outward  washing,  but  to  the  inward  grace,  which 
added  thereto,  makes  it  a  sacrament.  Herein  a  principle  of  grace 
is  infused,  which  will  not  be  wholly  taken  away,  unless  we  quench 
the  Holy  Spirit  of  God,  by  long-continued  wickedness. 

5.  In  consequence  of  our  being  made  children  of  God,  we  arc 
heirs  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  '  If  children,'  (as  the  apostle 
observes)  '  then  heirs,  heirs  with  God,  and  joint-heirs  with  Christ.' 
Herein  we  receive  a  title  to,  and  an  earnest  of,  '  a  kingdom  which 
cannot  be  moved.'  '  Baptism  doth  now  save  us,'  if  we  live  answer- 
able thereto,  if  v/e  repent,  believe,  and  obey  the  gospel.  Supposing 
this,  as  it  admits  us  into  the  church  here,  so  into  glory  hereafter. 

III.  1.  But  did  our  Saviour  design  this  should  remain  always  in 
his  church  1  This  is  the  third  thing  we  are  to  consider.  And  this 
may  be  despatched  in  few  words,  since  there  can  be  no  reasonable 
doubt  but  it  was  intended  to  last  as  long  as  the  church  into  which  it 
is  the  appointed  means  of  entering.  In  the  ordinary  way,  there  is 
no  other  means  of  entering  into  the  church  or  into  heaven. 

2.  In  all  ages  the  outward  baptism  is  a  means  of  the  inivard ;  as 
outward  circumcision  was,  of  the  circumcision  of  the  heart.  Nor 
would  it  have  availed  a  Jew  to  say,  I  have  the  inward  circumcision, 
and  therefore  do  not  need  the  outward  too  :  that  soul  was  to  be  cut 
off  from  his  people.  He  had  despised,  he  had  broken  God's  ever- 
lasting covenant,  by  despising  the  seal  of  it.  (Gen.  xvii.  14.)     Nov,- 


/ 


A  TREATISE  OJSr  BAPTISM.  159 

the  seal  of  circumcision  was  to  last  among  the  Jews  as  long  as  the 
law  lasted,  to  which  it  obliged  them.  By  plain  parity  of  reason, 
baptism,  which  came  in  its  room,  must  last  among  Christians  as  long 
as  the  gospel  covenant  into  which  it  admits,  and  whereunto  it  obliges 
all  nations. 

3.  This  appears  also  from  the  original  commission  which  our  Lord 
gave  to  his  apostles,  '  Go,  disciple  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  teaching 
ihem' — '  And,  lo,  I  am  with  you  always  even  unto  the  end  of  the 
world.'  Now  as  long  as  this  commission  lasted,  as  long  as  Christ, 
promised  to  be  with  them  in  the  execution  of  it,  so  long  doubtless 
were  they  to  execute  it,  and  to  baptize  as  well  as  to  teach.  But 
Christ  hath  promised  to  be  with  them,  that  is  by  his  Spirit,  in  their 
successors,  to  the  end  of  the  world.  So  long  therefore  without  dis- 
pute, it  was  his  design,  that  baptism  should  remain  in  his  church. 

IV,  1 .  But  the  grand  question  is.  Who  are  the  proper  subjects  of 
baptism?  Grown  persons  only,  or  infants  also  ?  In  order  to  an- 
swer this  fully,  I  shall,  first,  lay  down  the  grounds  of  infant-baptism^ 
taken  from  Scripture,  reason,  and  primitive,  universal  practice  ; 
and,  secondly,  answer  the  objections  against  it. 

2.  As  to  the  grounds  of  it ;  if  infants  are  guilty  of  original  sin . 
then  they  are  proper  subjects  of  baptism  :  seeing  in  the  ordinar} 
way,  they  cannot  be  saved,  unless  this  be  washed  away  by  baptism. 
It  has  been  already  proved,  that  this  original  £tain  cleaves  to  everj 
child  of  man ;  and  that  hereby  they  are  children  of  wrath,  and  lia- 
ble to  eternal  damnation.  It  is  true,  the  Second  Adam  has  found  a- 
remedy  for  the  disease  which  came  upon  all  by  the  otFence  of  the 
first.  But  the  benefit  of  this  is  to  be  received  through  the  means 
which  he  hath  appointed  :  through  baptism  in  particular,  which  is 
the  ordinary  means  he  hath  appointed  for  that  purpose :  and  to  which 
God  hath  tied  ics,  though  he  may  not  have  tied  himself.  Indeed 
where  it  cannot  be  had,  the  case  is  different ;  but  extraordinary  cases 
do  not  make  void  a  standing  rule.  This,  therefore,  is  our  first 
ground  :  infants  need  to  be  washed  from  original  sin  :  therefore  they 
are  proper  subjects  of  baptism. 

3.  Secondly,  If  infants  are  capable  of  making  a  covenant,  and 
were  and  still  are  under  the  evangelical  covenant,  then  they  have  a. 
right  to  baptism,  which  is  the  entering  seal  thereof.  But  infants  are 
capable  of  making  a  covenant,  and  were  and  still  are  under  the 
evangelical  covenant. 

The  custom  of  nations  and  common  reason  of  mankind,  prove 
that  infants  may  enter  into  a  covenant,  and  may  be  obliged  by  com- 
pacts made  by  others  in  their  names,  and  receive  advantage  by  them. 
But  we  have  stronger  proof  than  this,  even  God's  own  word,  (Deut. 
xxix.  10,  11,  12,)  'Ye  stand  this  day  all  of  you  before  the  Lord— 
your  captains,  with  all  the  men  of  Israel ;  your  little  ones,  your 
wives,  and  the  stranger — that  thou  shouldst  enter  into  covenant 
with  the  Lord  thy  God.'  Now  God  would  never  have  made  a  cove- 
nant with  little  ones,  if  they  had  not  been  capable  of  it.     It  is  not 


160  A  TREATISJ3  OJf  BAPTISJI* 

said  cldldren  only,  but  little  children,  the  Hebrew  word  properly  sig- 
nifying infants.  And  these  maybe  still,  as  they  were  of  old,  obliged 
to  perform  in  after-time,  what  they  are  not  capable  of  performing  at 
the  time  of  their  entering  into  that  obligation. 

4.  The  infants  of  believers,  the  true  children  of  faithful  Abra- 
ham, always  were  under  the  gospel  covenant.  They  were  included 
in  it,  they  had  a  right  to  it,  and  to  the  seal  of  it :  as  an  infant  heir 
has  a  right  to  his  estaie,  though  he  cannot  yet  have  actual  posses- 
sion. The  covenant  with  Abraham  was  a  gospel  covenant,  the  con- 
dition the  same,  namely,  faith :  which  the  apostle  observes  was 
•  imputed  unto  him  for  righteousness.'  The  inseparable  fruit  of  this 
faith  was  obedience  ;  for  by  faith  he  left  his  country,  and  offered  his 
son.  The  benefits  were  the  same  ;  for  God  promised,  '  I  will  be 
fhy  God,  and  the  God  of  thy  seed  after  thee  :'  and  he  can  promise 
no  more  to  any  creature  ;  for  this  includes  all  blessings,  temporal 
and  eternal.  The  Mediator  is  the  same  ;  for  it  was  in  his  seed,  that 
is,  in  Christ,  (Gen.  xxii.  18.  Gal.  iii.  16.)  that  all  nations  were  to  be 
blessed  :  on  which  very  account  the  apostle  says,  '  The  gospel  was 
preached  unto  Abraham.'  (Gal.  iii.  8.)  Now  the  same  promise  that 
was  made  to  him,  the  same  covenant  that  was  made  with  him,  was 
made  'with  his  children  after  him.'  (Gen.  xvii.  7.  Gal.  iii.  7.)  And 
■ipon  that  account  it  is  called  '  an  everlasting  covenant.'  In  this 
(Covenant  children  were  also  obliged  to  what  they  knew  not,  to  the 
same  faith  and  obedience  with  Abraham.  And  so  they  are  still : 
as  they  are  still  equally  entitled  to  all  the  benefits  and  promises 
of  it. 

5.  Circumcision  was  then  the  seal  of  the  covenant ;  which  is 
itself  therefore  figuiatively  termed.  The  Covenant.  (Acts  vii.  8.) 
Hereby  the  children  of  those  who  professed  the  true  religion,  were 
then  admitted  into  it,  and  obliged  to  the  conditions  of  it,  and  '  when 
the  law  was  added,'  to  the  observance  of  that  also.  And  when  the 
old  seal  of  circumcision  was  taken  off,  this  of  baptism  was  added  in 
its  room :  our  Lord  appointing  one  positive  institution  to  succeed 
another.  A  new  seal  was  set  to  Abraham's  covenant :  the  seals 
differed,  but  the  deed  was  the  same  ;  only  that  part  was  stmck  off 
which  was  political  or  ceremonial.  That  baptism  came  in  the  room 
of  circumcision,  appears  as  well  from  the  clear  reason  of  the  thing, 
as  from  the  apostle's  argument,  where,  after  circumcision,  he  men^ 
tions  baptism,  as  that  wherein  God  had  '  forgiven  us  our  trespasses  :' 
to  which  he  adds,  the  '  blotting  out  the  handwriting  of  ordinances/ 
plainly  relating  to  circumcision  and  other  Jewish  rites  ;  which  as 
fairly  implies,  that  baptism  came  in  the  room  of  circumcision,  as  our 
iSaviour's  styling  the  other  sacrament,  the  passover,  (Col.  ii.  II,  12, 
13.  Luke  xxii.  15.)  shows  that  it  was  instituted  in  the  place  of  it. 
Nor  is  it  any  proof  that  baptism  did  not  succeed  circumcision,  be- 
cause it  differs  in  some  circumstances,  any  more  than  it  proves  the 
Lord's  supper  did  not  succeed  the  passover,  because  in  several  cir- 
cumstances it  differs  from  it.  This  then  is  a  second  ground.  In- 
fants are  capable  of  entering  into  covenant  with  God,     As  they  al- 


A   TREATISE   ON   BAPTISM.  16  i 

ways  were,  so  they  still  are  under  the  evangelical  covenant.  There- 
fore they  have  a  right  to  baptism,  which  is  now  the  entering  seal 
thereof. 

6.  Thirdly,  If  infants  ought  to  come  to  Christ,  if  they  are  capable, 
of  admission  into  the  church  of  God,  and  consequently  of  solemn,, 
sacramental  dedication  to  him,  then  they  are  proper  subjects  of  bap- 
tism. But  infants  are  capable  of  coming  to  Christ,  of  admission 
into  the  church,  and  solemn  dedication  to  God. 

That  infants  ought  to  come  to  Christ  appears  from  his  own  words. 
'They  brought  little  children  to  Christ,  and  the  disciples  rebuked, 
them.  And  Jesus  said,  Suffer  little  children  to  come  unto  me,  and 
forbid  them  not ;  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven.'  (Matt.  xix. 
13,  14.)  St.  Luke  expresses  it  still  more  sti'ongly,  (chap,  xviii.  15.) 
*  They  brought  unto  him  even  infants,  that  he  might  touch  them.' 
These  children  were  so  little,  that  they  Avere  brought  to  him.  Yef 
he  says,  '  Suffer  them  to  come  unto  me :'  so  little  that  '  he  took 
them  up  in  his  arms;'  yet  he  rebukes  those  who  would  have  hindered 
their  coming  to  him.  And  his  command  respected  the  future  as 
well  as  the  present.  Therefore  his  disciples  or  ministers  are  still  to 
suffer  infants  to  come,  that  is  to  be  brought  unto  Christ  But  they 
cannot  now  come  to  him,  unless  by  being  brought  into  the  church  : 
which  cannot  be  but  by  baptism.  Yea,  and  '  of  such,'  says  our 
Lord,  '  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven ;'  not  of  such  only,  as  were  like 
these  infants.  For  if  they  themselves  were  not  fit  to  be  subjects  of 
that  kingdom,  how  could  others  be  so,  because  they  were  like  them  ? 
Infants,  therefore,  are  capable  of  being  admitted  into  the  church, 
and  have  a  right  thereto.  Even  under  the  Old  Testament  they  were 
admitted  into  it  by  circumcision.  And  can  we  suppose  they  are  in. 
a  worse  condition  under  the  gospel,  than  they  were  under  the  law  ? 
And  that  our  Lord  would  take  away  any  privileges  which  they  then, 
enjoyed  1  Would  he  not  rather  make  additions  to  them  1  This  then 
is  a  third  groimd.  Infants  ought  to  come  to  Christ,  and  no  man 
ought  to  forbid  them.  They  are  capable  of  admission  into  the  church  - 
of  God.     Therefore  they  are  proper  subjects  of  baptism. 

7.  Fourthly,  If  the  apostles  baptized  infants,  then  are  they  proper 
subjects  of  baptism.  But  the  apostles  baptized  infants,  as  is  plain, 
fi'om  the  following  consideration.  The  Jews  constantly  baptized  as 
well  as  circumcised  all  infant-proselytes.  Our  Lord  therefore  com- 
manded  his  apostles,  to  proselyte  or  disciple  all  nations  by  baptizing 
them,  and  not  forbidding  them  to  receive  infants  as  well  as  others, 
they  must  needs  baptize  children  also. 

That  the  Jews  admitted  proselytes  by  baptism'  as  well  as  by  cir- 
cumcision, even  whole  families  together,  parents  and  children,  we 
have  the  unanimous  testimony  of  their  most  ancient,  learned,  and 
authentic  writers.  The  males  they  received  by  baptism  and  circum- 
cision ;  the  women  by  baptism  only.  Consequently  the  apostles, 
unless  our  Lord  had  expressly  forbidden  it,  would  of  course  do  the 
same  thing. 

ludeed  the  consequence  would  hold  from  circumcision  only.     Foj. 

P2 


iG2  A   THEATISE   ON   BAPTISitf. 

ii"  it  was  the  custom  of  the  Jews,  when  they  gathered  proselyte.^ 
out  of  all  nations,  to  admit  children  into  the  church  by  circumcision, 
though  they  could  not  actually  believe  the  law  or  obey  it ;  then  the 
apostles,  making  proselytes  to  Christianity  by  baptism,  could  never 
fhink  of  excluding  children,  whom  the  Jews  always  admitted  (the 
reason  for  their  admission  being  the  same)  unless  our  Lord  had  ex- 
pressly forbidden  it.  It  follov/s,  the  apostles  baptized  infants.  There- 
fore they  are  proper  subjects  of  baptism. 

8.   If  it  be  objected,  there  is  no  express  mention  in  Scripture  of 
any  infants  whom  the  apostles  baptized  :  I  would  ask,  Suppose  no 
mention  had  been  made  in  the  Jlcls  of  those  two  women  baptized  by 
the  apostles,  yet  might  we  not  fairly  conclude,  that  when  so  many 
thousands,  so  many  entire  households  were  baptized,  women  were 
not  excluded  ?  Especially  since  it  was  the  known  custom  of  the 
Jews  to  baptize  them  1     The  same  holds  of  children  :  Nay  more 
strongly,  on  the  account  of  circumcision.     Three  thousand  were 
baptized  by  the  apostles  in  one  day,  and  five  thousand  in  another. 
And  can  it  be  reasonably  supposed,  that  there  were  no  children 
among  such  vast  numbers  ?  Again,  the  apostles  baptized  many  fami- 
lies :  nay,  we  hardly  read  of  one  master  of  a  family,  who  was  con- 
verted and  baptized,  but  his  whole  family,  (as  was  before  the  custom 
among  the  Jews,)  were  baptized  with  him.       Thus  the  'jailer's 
household,'  'he   and  all  his:'    'the  household  of  Caius,' of  'Ste- 
phanus,'  of  '  Crispus.'     And  can  we   suppose,  that   in   all  these 
households,  which,  we  read,  were  without  exception  baptized,  there 
should  not  be  so  much  as  one  child,  or  infant  ?  But,  to  go  one  step 
further.     St.  Peter  says  to  the  multitude.  Acts  ii.  38,  '  Repent  and 
he  baptized  every  one  of  you,  for  the  remission  of  sins.     For  the 
promise  is  to  you  and  to  your  children.'     Indeed  the  answer  is  made 
directly,  to  those  who  asked,  '  What  shall  we  do  V  But  it  reaches: 
farther  than. to  those  who  asked  the  question.     And  though  children 
could  not  actually  repent,  yet  they  might  be  baptized.     And  that 
they  are  included  appears,  1.  Because  the  apostle  addresses  himself 
to  every  one  of  them,  and  in  evenj  one,  children  must  be  contained  ; 
3.  They  are  expressly  mentioned,  '  The  promise  is  to  you  and  to 
your  children.' 

9.  Lastly,  If  to  baptize  infants  has  been  the  general  practice  of 
the  Christian  church  in  all  places  and  in  all  ages,  then  this  must  have 
been  the  practice  of  the  apostles,  and  consequently  the  mind  of 
Christ.  But  to  baptize  infants  has  been  the  general  practice  of  the  . 
Christian  church,  in  all  places  and  in  all  ages.  Of  this  we  have 
unexceptionable  witnesses.  St.  Austin  for  the  Latin  church,  (who 
flourished  before  the  year  400,)  and  Origen  for  the  Greek,  (born  in 
the  second  century,)  both  declaring,  not  only  that  the  whole  church 
of  Christ  did  then  baptize  infants,  but  likewise  that  they  received 
this  practice  from  the  apostles  themselves.  {August,  de  Genesi, 
J  Ah.  10.  c.  23.  Orig.  in  Rom.  G.)  St.  Cyprian  likewise  is  express 
ibr  it,  and  a  whole  council  with  him  {Epis.  ad  Fidum.)  If  need 
w^ve  we  might  cite  likewise  Athanasius,  Chrysostom,  and  a  cloud  of 


A  TREATISE  OJJ  BAPTISM.  163' 

vntnesses.  Nor  is  there  one  instance  to  be  found  in  all  antiquity,  of 
any  orthodox  Christian,  who  denied  baptism  to  children  when 
brought  to  be  baptized :  nor  any  one  of  the  fathers,  or  ancient  wri- 
ters, for  the  first  eight  hundred  years  at  least,  who  held  it  unlawful. 
And  that  it  has  been  the  practice  of  all  regular  churches  ever  since, 
is  clear  and  manifest.  Not  only  our  own  ancestors  when  first  con- 
Verted  to  Christianity,  not  only  all  the  European  churches,  but  the 
African  too  and  the  Asiatic,  even  those  of  St.  Thomas  in  the  In- 
dies, do  and  ever  did  baptize  their  children.  The  fact  being  thus 
cleared,  that  infant-baptism  has  been  the  general  practice  of  the 
Christian  church  in  all  places  and  in  all  ages,  that  it  has  continued 
without  interruption  in  the  church  of  God,  for  above  seventeen  hun- 
dred years,  we  may  safely  conclude,  it  was  handed  down  from  the 
apostles,  who  best  knew  the  mind  of  Christ. 

10.  To  sum  up  the  evidence ;  if  outward  baptism  be  generally,  in 
an  ordinary  way,  necessary  to  salvation,  and  infants  may  be  saved  as- 
well  as  adults,  nor  ought  we  to  neglect  any  means  of  saving  them  : 
if  our  Lord  commands  such  .to  come,  to  be  brought  unto  him,  and  de- 
clares, 'of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven  :'  if  infants  are  capable  of 
making  a  covenant,  or  having  a  covenant  made  for  them  by  others, 
being  included  in  Abraham's  covenant,  (which  was  a  covenant  of 
faith,  an  evangelical  covenant)  and  never  excluded  by  Christ :  if  they 
have  a  right  to  be  members  of  the  church,  and  were  accordingly 
members  of  the  Jewish :  if,  suppose  our  Lord  had  designed  to  ex- 
clude them  from  baptism,  he  must  have  expressly  forbidden  his  apos- 
tles to  baptize  them,  (which  none  dares  to  affirm  he  did,)  since  other- 
wise they  would  do  it  of  course,  according  to  the  universal  practice 
of  their  nation :  if  it  is  highly  probable  they  did  so,  even  from  the 
letter  of  Scripture,  because  they  frequently  baptized  whole  house- 
holds,  and  it  would  be  strange,  if  there  were  no  children  among 
them :  if  the  whole  church  of  Christ,  for  seventeen  hundred  years 
together  baptized  infants,  and  were  never  opposed  till  the  last  cen- 
'fury  but  one,  by  some  not  very  holy  men  in  Germany  :  Lastly,  if 
there  are  such  inestimable  benefits  conferred  in  baptism,  the  washing 
away  the  guilt  of  original  sin,  the  ingrafting  us  into  Christ,  by  making 
us  members  of  his  church,  and  thereby  giving  us  a  right  to  all  the 
blessings  of  the  gospel :  it  follows,  that  infants  may,  yea,  ought  to 
be  baptized,  and  that  none  ought  to  hinder  them. 

I  am,  in  the  last  place,  to  answer  those  objections,  which  are  com- 
jnonly  brought  against  infant-baptism. 

1 .  The  chief  of  these  is  :  "  Our  Lord  said  to  his  apostles,  (Matt, 
xxviii.  19,)  'Go  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name 
of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost.'  Here  Christ  himself 
put  teaching  before  baptizing.  Therefore  infants  being  incapable  of 
lieing  tauglU,  are  incapable  of  being  baptized.''^ 

1  answer,  1.  The  order  of  words  in  Scripture,  is  no  certain  rule 
tor  the  order  of  things.  We  read  in  St.  Mark  i.  4,  '  John  baptized 
in  the  wilderness,  and  preached  the  baptism  of  repentance.'  And, 
ver,  5,  '  They  were  baptized  of  him,  in  Jordan,  confessing  their  sins.' 


16  i  A   TREATISE   ON   BAPTISM'. 

Now  either  the  order  of  words  in  Scripture  does  not  always  imply 
the  same  order  of  things ;  or  it  follows,  that  John  baptized  before 
his  hearers  either  confessed  or  repented.  But,  2.  The  words  are 
manifestly  mistranslated.  For  if  we  read,  '  Go  and  teach  all  na- 
tions, baptizing  them — teaching  them  to  observe  all  things,  it  makes 
plain  tautology,  vain  and  senseless  repetition.  It  ought  to  be  trans- 
lated (which  is  the  literal  meaning  of  the  words)  Go  and  make  disci- 
ples of  all  nations,  by  baptizing  them.  That  infants  are  capable  of 
being  made  proselytes  or  disciples,  has  been  already  proved. 
Therefore  this  text,  rightly  translated,  is  no  valid  objection  against 
infant-baptism. 

2.  Their  next  objection  is,  "  The  Scripture  says,  '  Repent  and  be 
baptized  ;'  '  Believe  and  be  baptized.'  Therefore  repentance  and 
faith  ought  to  go  before  baptism.  But  infants  are  incapable  of  these. 
Therefore  they  are  incapable  of  baptism." 

I  answer,  repentance  and  faith  were  to  go  before  circumcision,  ag 
well  as  before  baptism.  Therefore,  if  this  argument  held,  it  would 
prove  just  as  well,  that  infants  were  incapable  of  circumcision. 
But  we  know  God  himself  determined  to  the  contrary,  commanding 
them  to  be  circumcised  at  eight  days  old.  Now  if  infants  were  ca- 
pable of  being  circumcised,  notwithstanding  that  repentance  and 
faith  were  to  go  before  circumcision  in  grown  persons,  they  are  just 
as  capable  of  being  baptized,  notwithstanding  that  repentance  and 
faitli  are  in  grown  persons  to  go  before  baptism.  This  objection, 
therefore,  is  of  no  force :  for  it  is  as  strong  against  the  circumcision, 
of  infants  as  infant-baptism. 

3.  It  is  objected,  thirdly,  "There  is  no  command  for  it  in  Scrip- 
ture. Now  God  was  angry  with  his  own  people,  because  they  did 
that,  which  he  said,  '  I  commanded  them  not.'  (Jer.  vii.  31.)  One 
plain  text  would  end  all  the  dispute." 

I  answer,  1.  We  have  reason  to  fear  it  would  not.  It  is  as  posi- 
tively commanded  in  a  very  plain  text  of  Scripture,  that  we  should 
*  teach  and  admonish  one  another  with  psalms,  and  hymns,  and  spi- 
ritual songs,  singing  to  the  Lord  with  grace  in  our  hearts,'  (Eph.  v. 
14,)  as  it  is  to  honour  our  father  and  mother.  But  does  this  put  an 
end  to  all  dispute  ]  Do  not  these  very  persons  absolutely  refuse  to 
do  it,  notwithstanding  a  plain  text,  an  express  command  ? 

I  answer,  2.  They  themselves  practise  what  there  is  neither  ex- 
press command,  nor  clear  example  for  in  Scripture.  They  have  no 
express  command  for  baptizing  women.  They  say  indeed,  "  Women 
are  implied  in  all  nations."  They  are  ;  and  so  are  infants  too:  but 
the  command  is  not  express  for  either.  And  for  admitting  women- 
to  the  Lord's  Supper,  they  have  neither  express  command  nor  clear 
example.  Yet  they  do  it  continually,  without  either  one  or  the  other. 
And  they  are  justified  therein  by  the  plain  reason  of  the  thing.  This 
also  justifies  us  in  baptizing  infants,  though  without  express  com- 
mand or  clear  example. 

If  it  be  said,  "  But  there  is  a  command,  (1  Cor.  xi.  28,)  'Let  a 
imxif  eiv6^a?roi^  examine  himself,  and  so  let  him  eat  of  that  bread  :" 


A   TREATISE   ON  BAPTISM.  165 

ibe  word  for  man  in  the  original  signifying  indifferently  either  men  or 
women."  I  grant  it  does  in  other  places  ;  but  here  the  word  him- 
self immediately  following,  confines  it  to  men  only.  "  But  women 
are  implied  in  it,  though  not  expressed."  Certainly  :  and  so  are  in- 
fants in  all  nations. 

"But  we  have  Scripture  example  for  it:  for  it  is  said  in  the  Acts, 
•  The  apostles  cantinued  in  prayer  and  supplication  with  the 
women.'  "  True,  in  prayer  and  supplication ;  but  it  is  not  said,  in 
communicating.  Nor  have  we  one  clear  example  of  it  in  the 
Bible. 

Since  then  they  admit  women  to  the  communion,  without  any  ex- 
press command  or  example,  but  only  by  consequence  from  Scrip- 
ture, they  can  never  show  reason  why  infants  should  not  be  admit- 
ted to  baptism,  when  there  are  so  many  scriptures  which  by  fair  con- 
sequence show  they  have  a  right  to  it,  and  are  capable  of  it. 

As  for  the  texts  wherein  God  reproves  his  people  for  doing  '  what 
he  commanded  them  not :'  that  phrase  evidently  means,  what  he 
had  forbidden ;  particularly  in  that  passage  of  Jeremiah.  The 
whole  verse  is,  'They  have  built  the  high  places  of  Tophet,  to  burn 
their  sons  and  their  daughters  in  the  fire,  which  I  commanded  them 
not.'  Now  God  had  expressly  forbidden  them  to  do  this  ;  and  that 
on  pain  of  death.  But  surely  there  is  a  difference  between  the  Jews 
offering  their  sons  and  daughters  to  devils,  and  Christians  offering 
theirs  to  God. 

On  the  whole,  therefore,  it  is  not  only  lawful  and  innocent,  buf 
meet,  right,  and  our  bounden  duty,  in  conformity  to  the  uninterrupt- 
ed practice  of  the  whole  church  of  Christ  from  the  earliest  ages,  to 
consecrate  our  children  to  God  by  baptism,  as  the  Jewish  church.; 
were  commanded  to  do  by  circumcision. 

.Yov.  11,  1756. 


THE 

DOCTRINE 

OF 

ORIGINAL   SIN: 

ACCORDING  TO  SCRIPTURE,  REASON,  AND  EXPERIENCE. 


THE  PREFACE. 

1.  A  FEW  years  ago  a  friend  put  into  my  hand  Dr.  Taylor's 
"«  Doctrine  of  Original  Sin  ;"  which  I  read  carefully  over  and 
partly  transcribed  :  and  have  many  times  since  diligently  considered. 
The  Author  is  doubtless  a  person  of  sense,  nay,  of  unusually  strong 
understanding,  joined  with  no  small  liveliness  of  imagination,  and  a 
good  degree  of  various  learning.  He  has  likewise  an  admirable 
command  of  temper,  so  that  he  almost  everywhere  speaks  as  one 
in  good  humour.  Add  to  this,  that  he  has  a  smooth  and  pleasing, 
yet  a  manly  and  nervous  style.  And  all  these  talents  he  exerts  to 
the  uttermost,  on  a  favourite  subject,  in  the  treatise  before  us  :  which 
he  has  had  leisure  for  many  years,  to  revise,  file,  correct,  and 
strengthen  against  all  objections. 

2.  So  finished  a  piece  surely  deserves  the  consideration  of  all 
those  masters  of  reason  which  the  age  has  produced.  And  I  have 
long  hoped,  that  some  of  those  would  attempt  to  show,  how  far  the 
doctrine  there  laid  down  is  true.  And  what  weight  there  is  in 
the  arguments  which  are  produced,  in  confirmation  of  it.  I  know 
not  how  to  believe,  that  all  the  clergy  in  England,  are  of  the  same 
opinion  with  this  author.  And  certainly  there  are  some  whom  all 
his  skill  in  Greek,  and  even  in  Hebrew,  does  not  make  afraid.  I 
should  rejoice  had  any  of  these  undertaken  the  task,  who  are  in 
many  respec^ts  better  qualified  for  it ;  particularly  in  this,  that  they 
have  time  upon  their  hands  ;  they  have  full  leisure  for  such  an  em- 
ployment. But  since  *none  else  will.  I  cannot  but  speak,  though 
lying  under  many  peculiar  disadvantages.  I  dare  not  be  silent  any 
longer :  necessity  is  laid  upon  me,  to  provide  those  who  desire  to 
know  the  truth  with  some  antidote  against  that  deadly  poison,  which 
has  been  diffusing  itself  for  several  years,  through  our  nation,  oui 
church,  and  even  our  universities.  Nay,- one  (I  hope,  only  one) 
father  of  the  church  has  declared,  "  That  he  knows  no  book  more 

*  Since  the  writing  of  this,  I  have  seen  several  tracts,  which  I  shall  have  occasion  to 
fake  notice  of  hereafter.  There  arc  likewise  many  excellent  remarks  on  this  subject 
in  Mr.  Hervex's  Dialogues. 


THE   PBETACE.  16'/ 

•|riT)per  than  this,  to  settle  the  principles  of  a  young  clergyman.''^     Is  it 
not  time  then  for  the  very  stones  to  cry  out  ? 

3.  For  this  is  not  a  point  of  small  importance  ;  a  question  that 
may  be  safely  determined  either  wa;y.  On  the  contrary,  it  may  be 
doubted  whether  the  scheme  before  us,  be  not  far  more  dangerous 
riian  open,  deism  itself.  It  does  not  shock  us  like  bare-faced  infi- 
delity :  we  feel  no  pain,  and  suspect  no  evil  while  it  steals  like 
"  water  into  our  bowels,"  like  "  oil  into  our  bones."  One  who 
would  be  upon  his  guard  in  reading  the  works  of  Dr.  Middleton  or 
Lord  Bolingbroke,  is  quite  open  and  unguarded  in  reading  the 
smooth,  decent  writings  of  Dr.  Taylor :  one  who  does  not  oppose 
(far  be  it  from  him  !)  but  only  explain  the  Scripture,  who  does  not 
raise  any  difficulties  or  objections  against  the  Christian  revelation, 
but  only  removes  those  with  which  it  had  been  unhappily  encumbered 
for  so  many  centuries  ! 

4.  1  said,  "  Than  open  deism."  For  I  cannot  look  on  this  scheme, 
as  any  other  than  old  deism  in  a  neio  dress  :  seeing  it  saps  the  very 
foundation  of  all  revealed  religion,  whether  Jewish  or  Christian. 
•'  Indeed,  my  Lord,  said  an  eminent  man  to  a  peison  of  quality,  I 
cannot  see  that  we  have  much  need  of  Jesus  Christ."  And  who 
might  not  say,  upon  this  supposition,  "  I  cannot  see  that  we  have 
much  need  of  Christianity."  Nay,  not  any  at  all ;  for  "  they  that 
are  whole,  have  no  need  of  a  physician  ;"  and  the  Christian  revela- 
tion speaks  of  nothing  else,  but  the  great  Physician  of  our  souls  : 
nor  can  Christian  philosophy,  whatever  be  thought  of  the  Pagan,  be 
more  properly  defined  than  in  Plato's  words :  it  is  Qs^xttux  -ipv^^?- 
The  only  true  method  of  healing  a  distempered  soul.  But  what 
need  of  this,  if  we  are  in  perfect  health  'i  If  we  are  not  diseased,  we 
do  not  want  a  cure.  If  we  are  not  sick,  why  should  we  seek  for  a 
•'  medicine  to  heal  our  sickness  ]"  What  room  is  there,  to  talk  of 
«3ur  being  renewed  in  knoxdedge  or  holiness,  ■'  after  the  image  where- 
in we  were  created,"  if  we  never  hiave  lost  that  image  1  If  we  are  as 
knowing  and  holy  now,  nay,  far  more  so,  than  Adam  was  imme- 
diately after  his  creation  'i  If  therefore,  we  take  away  this  founda- 
tion, that  man  is  by  nature  foolish  and  sinful,  fallen  short  of  the 
glorious  image  of  God,  the  Christian  system  falls  at  once  :  nor  will 
it  deserve  so  honourable  an  appellation,  as  that  of  a  "  cunningly  de- 
vised fable." 

5.  In  considering  this  Confutation  of  the  Christian  system,  I  am 
imder  some  difficulty  from  Dr.  Taylor's  manner  of  writing.  It  is 
his  custom  to  say  the  same  thing  (sometimes  in  different,  sometimes 
in  nearly  the  same  words)  six  or  eight,  perhaps  twelve  or  fifteen 
times,  in  different  parts  of  his  book.  Now  I  have  accustomed  my- 
self for  many  years,  to  say  one  and  the  same  thing  once  only.  How- 
ever, to  comply  with  his  manner  as  far  as  possible,  1  shall  add  at 
proper  intervals,  extracts  from  others,  expressing  nearly  the  same 
sentiment,  which  I  have  before  expressed  in  my  own  words. 

6.  I  am  sensible,  in  speaking  on  so  tender  a  point  as  this  must 
•needs  be,  to  those  who  believe  the  Christian  system,  there  is  danger 


168  THE    DOCTKir^E   OF   OBIGINAL    SIN. 

of  a  warmth  which  does  no  honour  to  our  cause,  nor  is  it  at  all  couii- 
tenanced  by  the  revelation  which  we  defend.  1  desire  neither  to 
show,  nor  to  feel  this,  but  to  "  speak  the  truth  in  love,"  (the  only 
warmth  which  the  gospel  allows,)  and  to  write  with  calmness,  though 
not  with  indiflerence.  There  is  hkewise  a  danger  of  despising  our 
opponents,  and  of  speaking  with  an  air  of  contempt  or  disdain.  -I 
would  gladly  keep  clear  of  this  also  ;  well  knowing  that  a  diffidence 
of  ourselves,  is  far  from  implying  a  diffidence  of  our  cause  :  I  dis- 
trust myself,  not  my  argument.  O  that  the  God  of  the  Christians 
may  be  with  me  !  That  his  Spirit  may  give  me  understanding,  and 
enable  me  to  think  and  "  speak  as  the  Oracles  of  God,"  without 
going  from  them  to  the  right  hand  or  to  the  left  ! 

Lewisham,  JVov.  30,  1756. 

THE 

DOCTRINE  OF  ORIGINAL  SIN,  &c.  &c.  &c. 

PART  I. 

The  past  and  present  State  of  J\Iankind. 


BEFORE  we  attempt  to  account  for  any  fact,  we  should  be  well 
assured  of  the  fact  itself.  First,  therefore,  let  us  inquire  what  is  the 
real  state  of  mankind  1  And  in  the  second  place  endeavour  to  ac- 
count for  it. 

I.  First,  I  say,  let  us  inquire.  What  is  the  real  State,  with  regard 
to  Knowledge  and  Virtue,  wherein  mankind  have  been  from  the  ear- 
liest times  1     And  what  state  are  they  in  at  this  day'? 

I.  1.  What  is  the  state,  (to  begin  with  the  former  branch  of  the 
inquiry,)  with  regard  to  knowledge  and  virtue,  wherein,  according  to 
the  most  authentic  accounts,  mankind  have  been  from  the  earliest 
times  1  We  have  no  authentic  account  of  the  state  of  mankind  in 
the  times  antecedent  to  the  deluge,  but  in  the  writings  of  Moses. 
What,  then,  according  to  these,  was  the  state  of  mankind  in  those 
times  ?  Moses  gives  us  an  exact  and  full  account :  God  then  "saw 
that  the  wickedness  of  man  was  great,  and  that  every  imagination  of 
the  thoughts  of  his  heart  was  only  evil  continually."  (Gen.  vi.  5.  12, 
13.)  And  this  was  not  the  case  of  only  part  of  mankind  ;  but  "  all 
flesh  had  corrupted  his  way  upon  the  earth."  And  accordingly  God 
said,  "  The  end  of  all  flesh  is  come,  for  the  earth  is  filled  with  vio- 
lence through  them."  Only  Noah  was  "  righteous  before  God." 
(ch.  vii.  1.)     Therefore  he  and  his  household  were  spared,  when 


PART   I.]  ORIGINAL   SIN.  i69 

God  "  brought  the  flood  upon  the  world  of  the  ungodly,"  and  de- 
stroyed them  all  fiom  the  face  of  the  earth. 

'  Let  us  examine  the  most  distinguishing  features  in  this  draught. 
Not  barely  the  works  of  their  hands,  or  the  words  of  their  tongue., 
but  "  every  imagination  of  the  thoughts  of  their  heart  was  evil." 
The  contagion  had  spread  itself  through  the  inner  man  ;  had  taint- 
ed the  seat  of  their  principles,  and  the  source  of  their  actions.  But 
was  there  not  some  mixture  of  good?  No;  they  were  only  evil 
Not  so  much  as  a  little  leaven  of  piety,  unless  in  one  single  family, 
But  were  there  no  lucid  intervals?  No  happy  moments  wherein  vir- 
tue gained  the  ascendancy  ]  None :  Every  imagination,  everj 
thought  was  only  evil  continually.'* 

2.  Such  was  the  state  of  mankind  for  at  least  sbcteen  hundred 
3"ears.  Men  were  corrupting  themselves  and  each  other,  and  pro- 
ceeding from  one  degree  of  wickedness  to  another,  till  they  were  all 
(save  eight  persons)  ripe  for  destruction.  So  deplorable  was  the 
state  of  the  moral  world,  while  the  natural  was  in  its  highest  perfec- 
tion. And  yet  it  is  highly  probable,  that  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth 
were  then  abundantly  more  numei'ous  than  ever  they  have  been 
since,  considering  the  length  of  their  lives,  falling  little  short  of  a 
thousand  years,  and  the  strength  and  vigour  of  their  bodies,  wliich 
we  may  easily  gather  from  the  time  they  were  to  continue  :  to  say 
nothing  of  the  fertility  of  the  earth,  probably  far  greater  than  it  is 
at  present.  Consequently  it  was  then  capable  of  sustaining  such  a 
number  of  inhabitants,  as  could  not  now  subsist  on  the  pix)duce 
of  it. 

3.  Let  us  next  take  a  view  of  the  famlies  of  the  sons  of  J^oah,  the 
inhabitants  of  the  earth  after  the  Flood.  The  tirst  remarkable  inci- 
dent we  read  concerning  them  is,  that  while  "  they  were  all  of  one 
language,  they  said  one  to  another.  Let  us  build  a  city  and  a  tower, 
whose  top  may  reach  unto  heaven,  lest  we  be  scattered  abroad  upon 
the  face  of  the  earth."  It  is  not  easy  to  determine,  what  were  the 
jieculiar  aggravations  which  attended  this  attempt.  But  it  is  certain, 
tjiere  was  daring  wickedness  therein,  which  brought  upon  them  the 
very  thing  they  feared.  For  "  the  Lord  by  confounding  their  lan- 
guage," (not  their  religious  worship  :  Can  we  suppose  God  would 
confound  this  1)  "  scattered  them  abroad  upon  the  face  of  all  the 
earth."  (Gen.  xi.  4 — 9.)  Now  whatever  particulars  in  this  account 
may  be  variously  interpreted,  thus  much  is  clear  and  undeniable. 
That  all  these,  that  is,  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth  had  agaiii 
"■' corrupted  their  way  ;"  the  universal  wickedness  being  legible  in 
ihe  universal  punishment. 

4.  We  have  no  account  of  their  reforming  their  ways,  of  anv 
xuiiversal  or  general  repentance,  before  God  separated  Abraham  to 
himself,  to  be  the  father  of  his  chosen  people.  (Gen.  xii.  1,2,)    Noi 
is  there  any  reason  to  believe,  that  the  rest  of  mankind  were  iin 
proved,  either  in  wisdom  or  virtue,  when  "  Lot  and  Abraham  sepa 

*  Mr.  Hervey's  Theron  aiidAsnasio,  Dial.  11. 

Vol.  9.— Q 


170  THE  DOCTKINE  -OF  [PAIJT   f. 

rated  themselves,  and  Lot  pitched  his  tent  toward  Sodom."  (ibid.) 
Of  those  among  whom  he  dweh,  it  is  particularly  remarked,  "  The 
men  of  Sodom"  (and  of  all  "  the  cities  of  the  plain)  were  wicked, 
and  sinners  before  the  Lord  exceedingly,"  (xiii.  13,)  so  that  not 
even  "  ten  righteous  persons"  could  be  found  among  them :  the 
consequence  of  which  was,  that  "  The  Lord  rained  upon  them  brim- 
stone and  fire  from  the  Lord  out  of  heaven."  (xix.  24.) 

5.  We  have  no  ground  to  suppose,  that  the  other  inhabitants  of 
the  earth,  (Abraham  with  his  family  and  descendants  excepted,)  had 
either  the  knowledge  or  the  fear  of  God,  from  that  time  till  Jacob 
went  into  Egypt.  This  was  then,  as  well  as  for  several  ages  after, 
the  great  seat  of  learning:  insomuch  that  "the  wisdom  of  the 
Egyptians"  was  celebrated  even  to  a  proverb.  And  indeed  for  this 
end,  as  well  as  "to  save  much  people  alive,"  (Gen,  1.  20,)  did 
"  God  send  Joseph  into  Egypt,  even  to  inform  their  princes  after  his 
will,  and  to  teach  their  senators  wisdom."  (Psalm  cv.  22.)  And  yet 
not  long  after  his  death,  as  their  king  knew  not  Joseph,  so  his  people 
knew  not  God.  Yea,  they  set  him  at  defiance  ;  they  and  their  king 
provoked  him  more  and  more,  and  "  hardened  their  hearts"  against 
him  :  even  after  they  had  "  seen  his  wonders  in  Egypt,"  after  they 
had  groaned  under  his  repeated  vengeance.  They  still  added  sin  to 
sin,  till  they  constrained  the  Lord  to  destroy  them  with  an  utter  de- 
.■jtruction  ;  till  the  divided  "  waters  returned  and  covered  the  chariot? 
and  horsemen,  and  all  the  host  of  Pharaoh." 

6.  Nor  were  the  other  nations  who  then  inhabited  the  earth,  any 
'better  than  the  Egyptians  :  the  true  knowledge  and  spiritual  worship 
of  God  being  confined  to  the  descendants  of  Abraham.  "  He  had 
not  dealt  so  with  other  nations,  neither  had  the  Heathens  knowledge 
of  his  lav.'s."  (Psalm  cxlvii.  20.)  And  in  what  state  were  the  Israel- 
ites themselves'?  How  did  they  worship  the  God  of  their  fathers'? 
Why  even  these  were  "  a  stubborn  and  rebellious  generation,  a  ge- 
neration that  set  not  their  heart  aright."  (Psalm  Ixxviii.  8.)  "  They 
kept  not  the  covenant  of  God,  and  refused  to  walk  in  his  law."  (ver. 
10.  Psalm  cvi  7.  Ex.  xiv.  11,  12.)  "  They  provoked  him  at  the 
sea,  even  at  the  Red  Sea ;"  the  very  place  where  he  had  so  signally 
delivered  them.  "  They  made  a  calf  in  Horeb,  and  worshipped  the 
molten  image,"  (Psalm  cvi.  19,)  where  they  had  heard  the  Lord,  but 
a  little  before,  saying  out  of  the  midst  of  the  fire,  "  Thou  shalt  not 
make  unto  thyself  any  graven  image  :  thou  shalt  not  bow  down  to 
them,  nor  worship  them."  And  how  amazing  was  their  behaviour 
during  those  whole  forty  years  that  they  sojourned  in  the  wilderness. 
Even  while  he  "  led  them  in  the  day  time  with  a  cloud,  and  all  the 
night  with  a  light  of  fire  ?"  (Psalm  Ixxviii.  14.)  Such  were  the 
knowledge  and  virtue  of  God's  peculiar  people,  (certainly  the  most 
knowing  and  virtuous  nation  which  was  then  to  be  found  upon  the 
face  of  the  earth,)  till  God  brought  them  into  the  land  of  Canaan  : 
considerably  more  than  two  thousand  years  from  the  creation  of  the 
world. 

None,  I  presume,  will  say,  There  was  any  other  nation  at  that 


yXHT  r.}  DBIGKfTAL  SIK.  17  7- 

tmie  more  knowing  and  more  virtuous  than  the  IsraeUtes.  None 
can  say  this  while  he  professes  to  believe,  according  to  the  scriptural 
account,  That  Israel  was  then  under  a  theocracy,  under  the  imme- 
diate government  of  God  :  That  he  conversed  with  their  subordinate 
governor  "  face  to  face,  as  a  man  talketh  with  his  friend  ;"  and  that 
God  was  daily  through  him  conveying  such  instructions  to  them,  as 
they  were  capable  of  receiving. 

7.  Shall  we  turn  our  eyes  for  a  moment  from  th*  scriptural,  to  the 
profane  account  of  mankind  from  the  earliest  ages?  What  was  the 
general  sentiment  of  the  most  polite  and  knowing  nation,  the  Ro- 
mans, when  their  learning  was  in  its  utmost  perfection?  Let  one, 
who  certainly  was  no  bigot  or  enthusiast,  speak  for  the  rest.  An# 
he.  speaks  home  to  the  point. 

Fidt  ante  Hdeiiam  mulier  teterrima  Belli 
Cmtsa  :  sed  ignolis  ptrinnnt  mortibns  onmes 
"'.UO  Q,uos  venerem  iuce.rlam  rapientes,  more  feranim, 

Viribus  edilior  ccedebat,  ut  in  grege  taurus. 

"Fuli  many  a  war  has  been  for  women  wag'd 
E'er  half  the  world  in  Helen's  cause  cngag'd  ^. 
But  unrecorded  in  historic  verse 
Obscurely  died  those  savage  ravislicrs  : 
Who  like  brute  beasts  the  female  bore  aivay. 
Till  some  sisperior  brute  re-sieiz'd  the  prey. 
As  a  wild  bull,  his  rival  bull  o'er  throivn, 
Claims  the  whole  subject  herd,  and  reigns  alone. 

\  doubt  he  who  gives  this,  not  as  his  peculiar  opinion,  but  as  what 
was  then  a  generally  received  notion,  would  scarce  have  allowed 
even  so  much  as  Juvenal, 

Piidkiliain  Saiunio  rcge  moratuin 
la  terris. 

Chastity  did  once,  I  grant,  remain 

On  earth,  afid  flourish'd  in  old  Saturn's  reign. 

Unless  one  should  suppose  the  reign  of  Saturn  to  have  expired,  when 
Adam  was  driven  out  of  paradise. 

I  cannot  forbear  adding  another  picture  of  the  ancient  dignity  of 
human  nature,  drawn  by  the  same  masterly  hand.  Before  men- 
dwelt  in  cities,  he  says,  this 

Tnrpe  peats,  glandem  atqtte  cubilia  propter, 
Certabant  pngiiis,  deinfustibxts,  atque  ila  porro 
Pugnabant  annis,  quae  post  fab  ricaverat  iisus. 

The  human  herd,  unbroken  and  untaught, 

For  acorns  first,  and  grassy  couches  fought ; 

With  fists,  and  theiT  with  clubs,  maintaiu'd  the  fray, 

Till  urg'd  by  hate  they  found  a  quicker  way. 

And  forg'd  pernicious  arms,  and  learnt  the  art  to  slay. 

What  a  ditlerence  is  there  between  this,  and  the  gay,  florid  accounts,; 
which  many  moderns  ^ive  of  their  own  species. 

8.  But  to  return  to  more  authentic  accounts.  At  the  time  when 
God  brought  the  Israelites  into  Canaan,  in  what  state  were  the  rest 
of  mankind?  Doubtless  in  nearly  the  same,  with  the  Canaanites, 
with  the  Araoritcs,   Hittites,  Perrizzites,  and  the  rest  of  the  seven 


V7'2  THE    DOCTREXE    OF  [PART   Iv 

nations.  But  the  mckedness  of  these,  we  know,  wa.s  full:  they  were 
corrupt  in  the  highest  degree.  All  manner  of  vice,  all  ungodliness 
and  unrighteousness  reigned  among  them  without  control.  And 
therefore  the  wise  and  just  Governor  of  the  world  gave  them  up  to  a, 
swift  and  total  destruction. 

9.  Of  Israel  indeed  we  read,  that  they  "  served  the  Lord  all  the 
days  of  .Joshua,  and  all  the  days  of  the  elders  that  overlived  Joshua,'" 
(Jos.  xxiv,  31.)  And  yet  even  at  that  time,  they  did  not  serve  him 
alone;  they  were  not  tree  from  gross  idolatry.  Otherwise  there 
had  been  no  need  of  his  giving  them  that  exhortation  a  little  before 
his  death.  "Now,  therefore,  put  away  the  strange  gods  which  are 
among  you,  the  gods  which  your  fathers  served  on  the  other  side  ot 
the  river,"  (Jordan.)  (ibid.  ver.  23.)  What  gods  these  were,  we 
learn  by  the  words  ol'  Amos,  cited  by  St.  Stephen,  "  O  ye  house  oi 
Israel,  have  ye  offered  sacrifices  to  rae,  by  the  space  of  forty  years  *? 
Vea,  ye  took  up  the  tabernacle  of  Moloch,  and  the  star  of  your  god 
Remphan,  figures  which  ye  made  to  worship  them."  { Actsvii.  42, 43.) 

10.  The  sacred  history  of  what  occurred  within  a  short  space  after 
the  death  of  Joshua,  for  some  hundreds  of  years,  even  till  the  time 
that  Samuel  judged  Israel,  gives  us  a  laige  account  of  their  astonish- 
ing wickedness,  during  almost  that  whole  period.  It  is  true,  just 
■^'  v/hen  God  smote  them,  then  they  sought  him  ;  they  returned  and 
inquired  after  God.  Yet  their  heart  was  not  right  with  him,  neither 
ivere  they  steadfast  in  his  covenant."  (Psm.  Ixxviii.  34.  37.)  And 
W3  fiiil  little  alteration  among  them  for  the  better,  in  the  succeeding 
ages:  insomuch  that  in  the  reign  of  Ahab,  about  nine  hundred  years 
before  Christ,  there  were  only  "seven  thousand  left  in  Israel  who 
had  not  bowed  the  knee  to  Baal."  (1  Kings  xix.  18.)  What  manner 
of  men  they  were  for  the  next  three  hundred  years,  we  may  learn  from 
the  books  of  the  kings  and  from  the  prophets  :  whence  it  fully  ap- 
pears that  except  a  few  short  intervals,  they  were  given  up  to  all  man- 
ner of  abominations  ;  by  reason  of  which  the  name  of  the  Most  High 
was  the  more  abundantly  blasphemed  among  the  Heathens,  And 
this  continued  till  their  open  rebelhon  against  God,  brought  upon 
the  whole  nation  of  the  Jews,  (an  hundred  and  thirty- four  years 
after  the  captivity  of  the  ten  tribes,  and  about  six  hundred  before 
Christ,)  those  terrible  and  long  deserved  calamities,  which  made  them 
a  spectacle  to  all  that  were  round  about  them.  The  writings  of 
Ezekiel,  Daniel,  and  Jeremiah,  leave  us  no  room  to  think,  that  they 
were  reformed  by  those  calamities.  Nor  was  there  any  lasting  re- 
formation in  the  time  of  Ezra,  or  of  Nehemiah  and  Malachi :  but 
they  were  still,  as  their  forefathers  had  been,  "  a  faithless  and  stub- 
born generation."  Such  were  they  likewise,  as  we  may  gather  from 
the  books  of  Maccabees  and  Josephus,  to  the  Very  time  when  Christ 
came  into  the  world. 

11.  Our  blessed  Lord  has  given  us  a  large  description  of  those  who 
were  then  the  most  eminent  for  religion.  "  Ye  devour,"  says  he, 
•  widows'  houses,  and  for  a  pretence  make  long  prayers.     Ye  make 


TART    I.]  ORIGINAL   SIN.  173 

your  proselytes  two-fold  more  the  children  of  hell  than  yourselves. 
Ye  neglect  the  weightier  matters  of  the  law,  judgment,  mercy,  and 
faith.  Ye  make  clean  the  outside  of  the  cup,  but  within  are  full  ol 
extortion  and  excess.  Ye  are  like  whited  sepulchres,  outwardlj 
beautiful,  but  within  full  of  dead  men's  bones,  and  of  all  uncleanness. 
Ye  serpents,  ye  generation  ot  vipers,  how  can  ye  escape  the  damna- 
tion of  hell  ?"  (Matt,  xxiii  14,  &c.)  And  to  these  very  men,  after 
the^  had  murdered  that  Just  One,  his  faithful  follower  declared. 
•"  Ye  stiff-necked  and  uncircumcised  in  heart  and  ears,  ye  do  alwayp 
resist  the  Holy  Ghost;  as  your  fathers  did,  so  do  ye."  (Acts  vii.  51.) 
And  so  they  continued  to  do,  till  the  wrath  of  God  did  indeed  "  come 
upon  them  to  the  uttermost ;"  till  eleven  hundred  thousand  of  them 
were  destroyed,  their  city  and  temple  levelled  with  the  dust,  and 
above  ninety  thousand,  sold  for  slaves  and  scattered  into  all  lands. 

12.  Such  in  all  generations  were  the  lineal  children  of  Abraham, 
who  had  so  unspeakable  advantages  over  the  rest  of  mankind  ;  "  To 
whom  pertained  the  adoption,  and  the  glory,  and  the  covenants,  and' 
the  giving  of  the  law,  and  the  service  of  God,  and  the  promises  :"' 
among  whom  therefore  we  may  reasonably  expect  to  find  the  greatest 
eminence  of  knowledge  and  virtue.  If  these  then  were  so  stupidly, 
brutishly  ignorant,  so  desperately  wicked  ;  what  can  we  expect  from 
the  Heathen  world,  from  them  who  had  not  the  knowledge  either  o( 
his  law  or  promises  ]  Certainly  we  cannot  expect  to  find  more  good- 
ness among  them.  But  let  us  make  a  fair  antl  impartial  inquiry  : 
and  that  not  among  wild  and  barbarous  nations,  but  the  most  civile 
ized  and  refined.  What  then  were  the  ancient  Romans?  The  people 
whose  virtue  is  so  highly  extolled,  and  so  warmly  commended  to  our 
imitation  1  We  have  their  character  given  by  one  who  cannot  de- 
ceive or  be  deceived,  the  unerring  Spirit  of  God.  And  what  account 
does  he  give  of  these  best  of  men,  these  heroes  of  antiquity  1  "  When 
they  knew  God,"  says  he,  at  least  as  to  his  eternity  and  power,  (both 
implied  in  that  appellation,  which  occurs  more  than  once  in  their 
own  poet.  Pater  omnipotens,  Almigldxj  Father)  "they  glorified  him  not 
as  God,  neither  were  thankful."  (Rom.  i.  21, &c.)  So  far  from  it  that 
one  of  their  oracles  of  wisdom,  (though  once  he  stumbled  on  that; 
great  truth,  J^emo  unquam  vir  magnus  sine  ajfflntu  divino  fuit;  there 
never  was  any  great  man,  without  the  afilatus  or  inspiration  of  God  ; 
yet  almost  in  the  same  breath)  does  not  scruple  to  ask,  QuisproviriuUf 
cad  sapienlia  gratias  diis  dedit  unquam?  Who  ever  thanked  God  for 
virtue  or  wisdom  1  No,  why  should  he;  since  these  are  "  his  own  ac- 
quisition, the  pure  result  of  his  own  industry  ?'  Accordingly  anothci 
virtuous  Roman  has  left  it  on  record,  as  an  unquestioned  maxim., . 

Time  satics  est  orare  Jovein  qucc  doiiat  el  aitfert : 

Del  v'Uam ;  del  opes  :  cRquum  mi  animiun  ipse  parubo. 

Enough  for  common  benefits  to  pray, 
Which  Jove  can  either  s;ive,  or  take  away  = 
Long  life  or  wealth  his  bounty  niay  bestow  ; 
Wisdom  and  viiluc  to  myself  I  owe. 

Q2 


I  71  THE   DOCTRINE   OP  [PAKT  I. 

So  '•  vain  were  they  become  in  their  imaginations  !  So  were  theiv 
foolish  hearts  darkened!"  (Rom.  i.  21,  &.C.) 

13.  But  this  was  only  the  first  step.  They  did  not  stop  here, 
'•'Professing  themselves  wise,"  they  yet  sunk  into  such  gross,  astonish- 
mg  folly  as  to  "  change  the  glory  of  the  incorruptible  God,"  (whom 
they  might  have  known  even  from  their  own  writers  to  be 

V^astam 
J\lens  agitans  mclem,  el  magna  se  corpore  miscens,  « 

The  all-informing  soul 
That  fills  the  mighty  mass,  and  moves  the  whole,) 

"-''into  an  image  made  like  to  corruptible  man,  yea,  to  birds,  to  beasts, 
to  creeping  things !"  What  wonder  was  it  then,  that  after  they  had 
thus  "  changed  his  glory  into  an  image,  God  gave  them  up  to  un- 
cleanness,  through  the  lusts  of  their  own  hearts,  to  dishonour  their- 
own  bodies  between  themselves?'  How  justly,  when  they  had 
^'  changed  the  truth  of  God  into  a  lie,  and  worshipped  and  served 
the  creature  rather  than  the  Creator,"  did  he  "  for  this  cause," 
punishing  sin  by  sin,  "  give  them  up  unto  vile  atfoctions.  For  even 
the  women  did  change  the  natural  use  into  that  which  is  against  na- 
ture." Yea,  the  modest  honourable  Roman  matrons,  (so  little  were 
they  ashamed!)  wore  their  priapi  openly  on  their  breasts.  "  And 
likewise  the  men  burned  in  their  lust  one  toward  another,  men  with 
inen  v/orking  that  which  is  unseemly."  What  an  amazing  testi- 
mony of  this  is  left  us  on  record,  even  by  the  most  modest  of  all  the- 
Uoman  poets ! 

Formomm  pastor  Corydon  ardebat  Alexin  ! 

How  does  this  pattern  of  Heathen  chastity  avow,  without  either  fear 
or  shame,  as  if  it  were  an  innocent  at  least,  if  not  laudable  passion. 
•'  their  burning  in  lust  one  toward  another  !"  And  did  men  of  the- 
finest  taste  in  the  nation  censure  the  song,  or  the  subject  of  it  1  We 
read  nothing  of  this  :  on  the  contrary,  the  universal  honour  and  es- 
teem paid  to  the  writer,  and  that  by  persons  of  the  highest  rank, 
plainly  shows  that  the  case  of  Corydon,  as  it  was  not  uncommon  in 
any  part  of  the  Roman  dominions,  so  it  was  not  conceived  to  be  an\ 
blemish,  either  to  him  or  his  master,  but  an  innocent  infirmity. 

JMeantime  how  delicate  an  idea  of  love,  had  this  favourite  of  Rome 
and  of  the  muses  1  Hear  him  explaining  himself  a  little  more  fully, 
on  this  tender  point. 

Eheu  !  qiiam  pingui  macer  est  mihl  taunts  in  agro  .' 
Idem  amor  exitium  est  pecori,  pecorisque  magistro. 

Idem  amor  !  The  same  love  in  the  bull  and  in  the  man  !  Whar 
elegance  of  sentiment !  Is  it  possible  any  thing  can  exceed  this  ? 
One  would  imagine  nothing  could,  had  not  the  same  chaste  poet 
furnished  us  with  yet  another  scene,  more  abundantly  shocking  than 

f:his. 

Pasiphaen  nivei  solatur  atnore  juvenci !    ■ 

'•  He  comforts  Pasiphae  with  the  love  of  her  milk-white  bull !"  J^ihil 
supra  !  The  condoling  a  woman  on  her  unsuccessful  amour  with  a 
bull,  shows  a  brutality  which  nothing  can  exceed !     How  justly  then 


VAHT 1.]  aKIGl^AIi  siiV.  175 

does  the  Apostle  add,  as  "  they  did  not  like"  (or  desire)  "  to  retain 
God  in  their  knowledge,  God  gave  them  over  to  an  undiscerning 
mind,  to  do  those  things  which  are  not  convenient."  in  consequence 
of  this,  they  were  "  filled  with  all  unrighteousness,"  vice  of  every 
kind,  and  in  every  degree  :  in  particular  '<  with  fornication,"  (taking 
the  word  in.  its  largest  sense,  as  including  every  sin  of  the  kind,) 
"  with  wickedness,  covetousness,  maliciousness,  with  envy,  murder, 
debate,  deceit,  malignity  :  being  haters  of  God,"  the  true  God,  the 
God  of  Israel,  to  whom  they  allowed  no  place  among  all  their  herd 
of  deities  :  "  despiteful,  proud,  boasters,"  in  as  eminent  a  degree  as 
ever  was  any  nation  under  heaven:  "inventers  of  evil  things"  in  great 
abundance,  of  mille  nocendi  artes,  both  in  peace  and  war :  *'  disobe- 
dient to  parents,"  although  duty  to  these  is  supposed  to  be  inscribed 
on  the  hearts  of  the  most  barbarous  nations  ;  "  covenant-breakers," 
even  of  those  of  the  most  solemn  kind,  those  wherein  the  public- 
faith  vt^as  engaged  by  their  supreme  magistrate  :  which  notwithstand- 
ing they  made  no  manner  of  scruple  of  breaking,  whenever  they 
saw  good  :  only  colouring  over  their  perfidiousness,  by  giving  those 
magistrates  into  their  hands  with  whom  the  covenant  was  made.  And 
what  was  this  to  the  purpose  1  Is  the  king  oi  France,  or  the  re- 
public of  Holland,  at  liberty  to  violate  their  most  solemn  treaties  at 
pleasure,  provided  they  give  up  to  the  king  of  England,  the  am- 
bassador or  general  by  whom  that  treaty  vi^as  made  1  What  would 
all  Europe  have  said  of  the  late  Czar,  if  instead  of  punctually  per- 
forming the  engagements  made  with  the  Porte  when  in  his  distress, 
he  had  only  given  up  the  persons  by  whom  he  transacted,  and  im- 
mediately broke  through  them  all  ]  There  is  therefore  no  room 
to  say 

J\Jodo  Punica  scripta  supersint, 
J^''on  minus  infamis  forte  latina  fides. 

Perhaps,  if  the  Carthaginian  writings  were  extant,  Roman  faith  would 
be  as  infamous  as  Punic.  We  need  them  not.  In  vain  have  they 
destroyed  the  Carthaginian  w^ritings  :  for  their  own  sufficiently  tes- 
tify of  them  ;  and  fully  prove  that  in  perfidy,  the  natives  of  Car- 
thage could  not  excel  the  senate  and  people  of  Rome. 

14.  They  were  as  a  nation,  x?-o^yoi.  "  Void  of  natural  affectiouy'- 
even  to  their  own  bowels.  Witness  the  universal  custom,  which 
obtained  for  several  ages  in  Rome,  and  all  its  dependencies,  (as  it  had 
done  before  through  all  the  cities  of  Greece,)  when  in  their  highest 
repute  for  wisdom  and  virtue,  of  exposing  their  own  new-born  chil- 
dren, more  or  fewer  of  them,  as  every  man  pleased,  when  he  had  as 
many  as  he  thought  good  to  keep,  throwing  them  out  to  perish  by 
cold  and  hunger,  unless  some  more  merciful  wild  beast  shortened 
their  pain,  and  jjrovided  them  a  sepulchre.  Nor  do  1  remember  a 
single  Greek  or  Roman,  of  all  those  that  occasionally  mention  it,  ever 
complaining  of  this  diabolical  custom,  or  fixing  the  least  touch  of 
blame  upon  it.  Even  the  tender  mother  in  Terence,  who  had  some 
compassion  for  her  helpless  infant,  does  not  dare  to  acknowledge  it 


ITu  THE   DOCTRtXE   OF  fpABT  T. 

io  lier  husband,  without  that  remarkable  preface,  Ut  misere  super-' 
siitiosK  sumus  omnes ;  as  we  women  are  all  miserably  superstitious, 

15.  I  would  desire  those  gentlemen  who  are  so  very  severe  upon 
the  Israelites,  lor  killing  the  children  of  the  Canaanites,  at  their  en- 
trance into  the  land  of  Canaan,  to  spend  a  few  thoughts  on  this. 
Not  to  insist,  that  the  Creator  is  the  absolute  Lord  and  Proprietor  of 
the  lives  of  all  his  creatures  :  that  as  such  he  may  at  any  time,  with- 
out the  least  injustice,  take  away  the  life  which  he  has  given  :  that 
he  may  do  this,  m  whatsoever  manner,  and  by  whatever  instruments- 
he  pleases:  and  consequently  may  inflict  death  on  any  creature  by 
whom  he  pleases,  without  any  blame  either  to  him  or  them  :  not  to 
insist,  I  say,  on  this,  or  many  other  things  Avhich  might  be  offered^ 
let  us  at  present  fix  on  this  single  consideration.  The  Israelites  de- 
stroyed the  children  for  some  weeks  or  months :  the  Greeks  and 
Romans  for  above  a  thousand  years.  The  one  put  them  out  of  tbeir 
pain  at  once,  doubtless  by  the  shortest  and  easiest  way.  The  others 
were  not  so  compassionate  as  to  cut  their  throats,  but  left  them  to 
pine  away  by  a  lingering  death.  Above  all,  the  Hebrews  destroyed 
only  the  children  of  their  enemies  ;  the  Romans  destroyed  their  own. 

0  fair  pattern  indeed  I    Where  shall  we  find  a  parallel  to  this  virtue  1 

1  read  *of  a  modern,  who  took  up  a  child,  that  fell  from  its  mother's 
womb,  and  threw  it  back  into  the  flames.  (Pure,  genuine  human 
nature  !)  and  reason  good  :  for  it  was  the  child  of  an  heretic.  But 
what  evil,  ye  worthies  of  ancient  Rome,  did  ye  find  in  your  oxen 
children  ?  I  must  still  say,  this  is  without  a  parallel,  even  in  the 
Papal  history. 

16.  They  were  implacable,  unmerdful.  Witness  (one  or  two  in- 
stances of  ten  thousand)  poor,  gray-headed  Hannibal,  (whom,  very 
probably,  had  we  any  other  accounts  of  him  than  those  which  were 
given  by  his  bitterest  enemies,  we  should  have  reverenced  as  one  of 
the  most  amiable  of  men,  as  well  as  the  most  valiant  of  all  the  an- 
eient  heathens,)  hunted  from  nation  to  nation,  and  never  quitted  till 
lie  fell  by  his  own  hand.  Witness  the  famous  suffrage,  '■^Dclenda  est 
Carthago.  Let  Carthage  be  destroyed."  Why?  It  was  imperii 
fvmiila :  the  rival  of  the  Roman  glory.  These  were  open,  undenia-t 
ble  evidences  of  the  public  national  placability  and  mercy  of  the 
Romans.  Need  instances  of  a  more  private  nature  be  added  ? 
Behold  then  one  for  all :  In  that  glory  of  Rome,  that  prodigy  of 
virtue,  the  great,  the  celebrated  Cato.  Cato  the  Elder,  when  any. 
©f  his  domestics  had  v/orn  themselves  out  in  his  service,  and  grew, 
decrepid  with  age,  constantly  turned  them  out  to  starve,  and  was 
much  applauded  for  his  frugality  in  so  doing.  But  what  mercy  was 
this  ?  Just  such  as  that  which  dwelt  in  Cato  of  Utica,  who  repaid, 
the  tenderness  of  his  servant  endeavouring  to  save  his  life,  to  prevent 
his  tearing  open  his  wound,  by  striking  him  on  the  face  with 
such  violence,  as  to  fill  his  mouth  with  blood.  These  are  thy  gods,. 
O  deism  !  These  are  the  patterns  so  zealously  recommended  to  our 
Imitation  ! 

17.  And  what  was  the  real  character  of  that  hero,  whom  Cf.to. 


?ABT  I.]  ORIGINAL  SIX.  177 

himself  so  admired  1  Whose  cause  he  espoused  with  such  eager- 
ness, with  such  unwearied  dihgence  1  Oi'  Pompey  the  Great  ? 
Surely  never  did  any  man  purchase  that  title  at  so  cheap  a  rate  ! 
What  made  him  great  ?  The  villany  of  Perpenna,  and  the  trea- 
chery of  Pharnaces.  Had  not  the  one  murdered  his  friend,  the 
other  rebelled  against  his  father,  where  had  been  Pompey's  great- 
ness 1  So  this  stalking-horse  of  a  party  procured  his  reputation  in. 
the  commonwealth.  And  when  it  was  procured,  how  did  he  use  it  1 
Let  his  own  poet,  Lucan,  speak — 

J^ec  Cczsar  ferre  pnorem, 

Pompeiusve  parem  potuit. 
Nor  Csesar  could  to  a  superior  look  : 
Nor  patriot  Pompey  could  an  equal  brook  J 

He  would  bear  no  equal !  And  this  a  senator  of  Rome  !  Nay,  the 
grand  patron  of  the  republic  i  But  what  a  republican  himself,  when 
this  principle  was  the  spring  of  all  his  designs  and  actions  !  Indeed  a 
less  amiable  character  it  is  not  easy  to  find,  among  all  the  great  men 
of  antiquity  :  ambitious,  vain,  liaughty,  surly,  and  overbearing,  be- 
yond the  common  rate  of  men.  And  what  virtue  had  he  to  balance 
these  faults  1  I  can  scarcely  find  one,  even  in  Lucan's  account :  it 
does  not  appear  that  in  the  latter  part  of  his  life,  he  had  even  military 
virtues.  What  proof  did  he  give  of  personal  courage,  in  all  his  war 
with  Caesar  1  What  instances  of  eminent  conduct  1  None  at  all 
if  we  may  credit  his  friend  Cicero  ;  who  complains  heavily  to  Atti- 
cus,  that  he  acted  like  a  madman,  and  would  ruin  the  cause  he  had 
undertaken  to  defend. 

18.  Let  none  therefore  look  for  placability  or  mercy  in  Pompey. 
But  was  there  any  unmercifulness  in  Coesai"  1 

"  Who  than  Julius  hopes  to  rise, 

More  brave,  more  generous,  or  more  wise  ?" 

Of  his  courage  and  sense  there  can  be  no  doubt.  And  much  may 
be  said  with  regard  to  his  contest  with  Pompey,  even  for  the  justice 
of  his  cause.  *For  with  him  he  certainly  fought  for  life,  rather  than, 
glory  :  of  which  he  had  the  strongest  conviction  (though  he  was 
ashamed  to  own  it)  when  he  passed  the  Rubicon.  Nor  can  it  be 
doubted  but  he  was  ofteri  merciful.  It  is  no  proof  of  the  contrary, 
that  he  rode  up  and  down  his  ranks  during  the  battle  of  Pharsalia, 
and  cried  to  those  who  were  engaged  with  the  pretty  gentlemen  ol 
Pompey's  army.  Miles,  faciem  feri ;  "  Soldier,  strike  at  the  face." 
For  this  greatly  shortened  the  dispute,  with  those  who  were  more 
afraid  of  losing  their  beauty  than  their  lives,  and  so  prevented  the 
etJusion  of  much  blood.  But  \  cannot  get  over  (to  say  nothing  of 
the  myriads  of  common  Gauls  whom  he  destroyed)  a  short  sentence 
in  his  commentaries,  Vercingetorix  per  tormenta  necatus.  Who  was* 
this  Vercingetorix  1  As  brave  a  man,  and  (considering  his  years) 
as  great  a  general  as  even  Caesar.  What  was  his  crime  ?  The 
love  of  his  parents,  wife,  children,  country,  and  sacrificing  all  things 
in  the  defence  of  them.  And  how  did  Cajsar  treat  him  on  this  ac- 
count 1     He  tortured  him  tQ  death,     O  Roman  mercy  !     Did  not 


178  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  [PART  I.  §  2: 

Brutus  and  Cassius  avenge  Vercingetorix  rather  than  Pompey  ?  How 
well  was  Rome  represented  in  the  prophetical  vision,  by  that  beast, 
"dreadful  and  terrible,  which  had  great  iron  teeth,  and  devoured, 
and  brake  in  pieces,  and  stamped  under  his  feet"  all  other  king- 
doms ! 

II.  1.  Such  is  the  state,  with  regard  to  knowledge  and  virtue, 
wherein,  according  to  the  most  authentic  accounts,  mankind  was, 
from  the  earliest  times,  for  above  four  thousand  years.  Such  nearly 
did  it  continue,  during  the  decline,  and  since  the  destruction  of  the 
Roman  empire.  But  we  will  waive  all  that  is  past,  if  it  only  appears 
that  mankind  are  virtuous  and  wise  at  this  day.  This  then  is  the 
point  we  are  at  present  to  consider.  Are  men  in  general  now  wise 
and  virtuous  ? 

Our  ingenious  countryman,  Mr.  Brerewood,  after  his  most  care- 
ful and  laborious  inquiries,  computes,  that  supposing  that  part  of  the 
earth,  which  we  know  to  be  inhabited,  were  divided  into  thirty  equal 
parts,  nineteen  of  these  are  heathen  still :  and  of  the  remaining 
eleven,  six  are  Mahometan,  and  only  five  Christian.  Let  us  take  as 
fair  and  impartial  a  survey  as  we  can,  of  the  heathens  first,  and  then 
of  the  Mahometans  and  Christians. 

And,  tirst,  of  the  heathens.  What  manner  of  men  are  these,  as 
to  virtue  and  knowledge  at  this  day  ?  Many  of  late,  who  still  bear 
the  Christian  name,  have  entertained  very  honourable  thoughts  of 
the  old  heathens.  They  cannot  believe  them  to  have  been  so  stupid 
and  senseless  as  they  have  been  represented  to  be  :  particularly, 
with  regard  to  idolatry,  in  worshipping  birds,  beasts,  and  creeping 
things.  Much  less  can  they  credit  the  stories  told  of  many  nations, 
the  Egyptians  in  particular, 

"  Who  are  said 

To  have  set  the  leek  they  after  pray'd  to." 

But  if  they  do  not  consider  who  they  are  that  transmit  to  us  these 
accounts,  namely,  both  those  writers  who,  they  profess  to  believe, 
spoke  "  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost,"  and  those  whom 
perhaps  they  value  more,  the  most  credible  of  their  contemporary 
heathens  :  If,  I  say,  they  ibrget  this,  do  they  not  consider  the  present 
state  of  the  heathen  world  1  Now,  allowing  the  bulk  of  the  ancient 
heathens  (which  itself  is  not  easily  proved)  to  have  had  as  much 
understanding  as  the  modern,  we  have  no  pretence  to  suppose  they 
had  more.  Whatever  therefore  they  were,  we  may  safely  gather 
from  what  they  are  :  we  may  judge  of  the  past  by  the  present. 
Would  we  know  then  (to  begin  with  a  part  of  the  world  known  to 
very  early  antiquity)  what  manner  of  men  the  heathens  in  Africa 
were  two  or  three  thousand  years  ago  ]  Inquire  what  they  are  now; 
'who  are  genuine  Pagans  still,  not  tainted  either  with  Mahometanism 
or  Christianity.  They  are  to  be  found  in  abundance,  either  in  Ne- 
gro-land, or  round  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope.  Now  what  measure 
of  knowledge  have  the  natives  of  these  countries  *?  I  do  not  say  in 
metaphysics,  mathematics,  or  astronomy.  Of  these  it  is  plain  they 
ifenow  jijst  as  much  as  their  four-footed  brethren.     The  lion  and  tht 


PART  I.  §  2,]  ORIGINAL  SIN,  VW 

man  are  equally  accomplished  with  regard  to  this  knowledge.  I  will 
not  ask,  what  they  know  of  the  nature  of  government,  of  the  re- 
spective rights  of  kings,  and  various  orders  of  subjects.  In  this  re- 
gard, a  herd  of  men  are  manifestly  inferior  to  a  herd  of  elephants. 
But  let  us  view  them  with  respect  to  common  life.  What  do  they 
know  of  the  things  they  continually  stand  in  need  of?  How  do 
they  build  habitations  for  themselves  and  their  families  1  How  se- 
lect and  prepare  their  food  1  Clothe  and  adorn  their  persons  1  As 
to  their  habitations,  it  is  certain,  I  will  not  say  our  horses,  (particu- 
larly those  belonging  to  the  nobility  and  gentry,)  but  an  English 
peasant's  dogs,  nay,  his  very  swine  are  more  commodiously  lodged. 
And  as  to  their  food,  apparel,  and  ornaments,  they  are  just  suitable 
to  their  edifices. 

"  Your  nicer  Hottentots  think  meet 
Witli  guts  and  tripe  to  deck  their  feet. 
With  downcast  eyes  on  Tolta's  legs, 
The  love-sick  youth  most  humbly  begs, 
She  would  not  from  his  sight  remove, 
At  once  his  breakfast  and  bis  love." 

Such  is  the  knowledge  of  these  accomplished  animals  in  things  whicl* 
cannot  but  daily  employ  their  thoughts  :  and  wherein  consequent!}' 
they  cannot  avoid  exerting  to  the  uttermost  both  their  natural  anc! 
acquired  understanding. 

And  what  are  their  present  attainments  in  virtue  ?  Are  they  not^ 
one  and  all,  "  without  God  in  the  world  ?"  Having  either  no  know- 
ledge of  him  at  all,  no  conception  of  any  thing  he  has  to  do  with 
them,  or  they  with  him  :  or  such  conceptions  as  are  far  worse  than 
none,  as  make  him  such  an  one  as  themselves.  And  what  are  their 
social  virtues  l  What  are  their  dispositions  and  behaviour  between 
man  and  man  ?  Are  they  eminent  for  justice  1  For  mercy,  or  truth  1 
As  to  mercy,  they  know  not  what  it  means,  being  continually  cut- 
ting each  other's  throats,  from  generation  to  generation,  and  selling 
for  slaves  as  many  of  those  who  tall  into  their  hands,  as  on  that  con- 
sideration only  they  do  not  murder.  Jusi,ice  they  have  none ;  no 
courts  of  justice  at  all ;  no  public  method  of  redressing  wrong,  but 
every  man  does  what  is  right  in  his  own  eyes,  till  a  stronger  than  he 
Ijcats  out  his  brains  for  so  doing.  And  they  have  just  as  much  re- 
gard to  truth  ;  cozening,  cheating,  and  over-reaching  every  man 
that  believes  a  word  they  say.  Such  are  the  moral,  such  the  intel- 
lectual perfections,  according  to  the  latest  and  most  accurate  ac- 
countSj  of  the  present  Heathens,  who  are  diffused  in  great  numbers 
over  a  fourth  part  of  the  known  world  ! 

3.  It  is  true,  that  in  the  new  world,  in  America,  they  seem  to 
breathe  a  purer  air,  and  to  be  in  general  men  of  a  stronger  under- 
standing, and  a  less  savage  temper.  Among  these  then  we  may 
surely  find  higher  degrees  of  knowledge  as  well  as  virtue.  But  in 
order  to  form  a  just  conception  of  them,  we  must  jiot  take  our  ac- 
count from  their  enemies ;  from  any  that  would  justify  themselves 
l)y  blackening  those  whom  they  seek  to  destroy.  No,  but  let  us  in- 
quire of  more  impartial  judges,  concerning  those  whom  they  hav*; 


180  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ['PART   I.   §   Si 

personally  known,  the  Indians  bordering  upon  our  own  settlements, 
from  New-England  down  to  Georgia. 

We  cannot  learn,  that  there  is  any  great  difference  in  point  of 
knowledge,  between  any  of  these,  from  east  to  west,  or  from  north 
to  south.  They  are  all  equally  unacquainted  with  European  learn- 
ing, being  total  strangers  to  every  branch  of  literature,  having  not  the 
least  conception  of  any  part  of  philosophy,  speculative  or  practical. 
Neither  have  they  (whatever  accounts  some  have  given)  any  such 
thing  as  a  regular,  civil  government  among  them.  They  have  no 
laws  of  any  kind,  unless  a  few  temporary  rules  made  in  and  for  the 
times  of  war.  They  are  likewise  utter  strangers  to  the  arts  of  peace, 
having  scarcely  any  such  thing  as  an  artificer  in  the  nation.  They 
know  nothing  of  building ;  having  only  poor,  miserable,  ill-con- 
trived huts,  far  inferior  to  many  English  dog-kennels.  Their 
clothing,  till  of  late,  was  only  skins  of  beasts,  commonly  of  deer, 
hanging  down  before  and  behind  them.  Now,  among  those  who 
have  commerce  with  our  nation,  it  is  frequently  a  blanket  wrapped 
about  them.  Their  food  is  equally  delicate  ;  pounded  Indian  corn 
sometimes  mixed  with  water,  and  so  eaten  at  once :  sometimes 
kneaded  into  cakes,  meal  and  bran  together,  and  half  baked  upon 
the  coals.  Fish  or  flesh,  dried  in  the  sun,  is  frequently  added  to 
this  ;  and  now  and  then  a  piece  of  tough,  fresh-killed  deer. 

Such  is  the  knowledge  of  the  Americans,  whether  in  things  of  an 
abstruser  nature,  or  in  the  affairs  of  common  life.  And  this,  so  far 
as  we  can  learn,  is  the  condition  of  all,  without  any  considerable 
difference.  But  in  point  of  religion,  there  is  a  very  material  differ- 
ence between  the  Northern  and  Southern  Indians.  Those  in  the 
north  are  idolaters  of  the  lowest  kind  :  If  they  do  not  worship  the 
Devil  appearing  in  person,  (which  many  firmly  believe  they  do,  many 
think  incredible,)  certainly  they  worship  the  most  vile  and  con- 
temptible idols.  It  were  more  excusable  if  they  only  "  turned  the 
glory  of  the  incorruptible  God  into  the  image  of  corruptible  man  ;" 
yea,  or  "  of  birds,  or  of  four-footed  beasts,  or  reptiles,"  or  any 
creature  which  God  has  made.  But  their  idols  are  more  horrid  and 
deformed  than  any  thing  in  the  visible  creation  :  and  their  whole 
worship  is  at  once  the  highest  affront  to  the  divine,  and  disgrace  to 
the  human  nature. 

On  the  contrary,  the  Indians  of  our  southern  provinces  do  not 
appear  to  have  any  worship  at  all.  By  the  most  diligent  inquiry 
from  those  who  had  spent  many  years  among  them,  I  could  never 
learn  that  any  of  the  Indian  nations,  who  border  on  Georgia  and 
Carolina,  have  any  public  worship,  of  any  kind  :  or  any  private. 
For  they  have  no  idea  of  prayer.  It  is  not  without  much  difficulty 
that  one  can  make  any  of  them  understand  what  is  meant  by  prayer. 
And  when  they  do,  they  cannot  be  made  to  apprehend,  that  God 
will  answer,  or  even  hear  it.  They  say,  "  He  that  sitteth  in  heaven 
is  too  high,  he  is  too  far  off  to  hear  ms."  In  consequence  of  which 
they  leave  him  to  himself,  and  manage  their  affairs  without  him 


T-ART   I.    §    2.]  ORIGIJS-AL   SIN.  iSi 

Only  the  Chicasaws,  ol  all  the  Indian  nations,  are  an  exception  to 
this. 

I  believe,  it  will  be  found  on  the  strictest  inquiry,  that  the  whole 
body  of  southern  Indians,  as  they  have  no  letters  and  no  laws, 
so  properly  speaking,  have  no  religion  at  all  So  that  every  one 
does  what  he  sees  good  :  and  if  it  appears  wrong  to  his  neighbour, 
he  usually  comes  upon  him  unawares,  and  shoots  or  scalps  him 
alive.  They  are  likewise  all  (I  ^ould  never  find  any  exception) 
gluttons,  drunkards,  thieves,  dissemblers,  Hars.  They  are  implaca- 
ble, never  forgiving  an  injury  or  atfront,  or  being  satisfied  with  less 
than  blood.  They  are  unmerciful,  killing  all  whom  they  take  pri- 
soners in  war,  with  the  most  exquisite  tortures.  They  are  murderers 
of  fathers,  murderers  of  mothers,  murderers  of  their  own  children  : 
It  being  a  common  thing  for  a  son  to  shoot  his  father  or  mother^ 
because  they  are  old  and  past  labour,  and  for  a  woman  either  to 
procure  abortion,  or  to  throw  her  child  into  the  next  river,  because 
she  will  go  to  the  war  with  her  husband.  Indeed  husbands  properly 
speaking,  they  have  none  ;  for  any  man  leaves  his  wife,  so  called,  at 
pleasure  ;  who  frequently  in  return,  cuts  the  throats  of  all  the 
children  she  has  had  by  him. 

The  Chicasaws  alone  seem  to  have  some  notion  of  an  intercourse 
between  man  and  a  superior  being.  They  speak  much  of  their 
beloved  ones ;  with  whom  they  say,  they  converse  both  day  and 
night.  But  their  beloved  ones  teach  them  to  eat  and  drink  from 
morning  to  night,  and  in  a  manner  from  night  to  morning :  for  they 
rise  at  any  hour  of  the  night  when  they  wake,  and  eat  and  drink  as 
much  as  they  can,  and  sleep  again.  Their  beloved  ones  likewise 
expressly  command  them,  to  torture  and  burn  all  their  prisoners. 
Their  manner  of  doing  it  is  this  :  They  hold  lighted  canes  to  their 
arms  and  legs,  and  several  parts  of  their  body,  for  some  time,  and 
then  for  awhile  they  take  them  away.  They  also  stick  burning 
pieces  of  wood  in  their  flesh  ;  in  w?iich  condition  they  keep  them 
from  morning  to  evening.  Such  are  at  present  the  knowledge  and 
\irtue  of  the  native  Heathens,  over  another  fourth  part  of  the  knoAvn 
world. 

4.  In  Asia,  however,  we  are  informed,  that  the  case  is  widely 
different.  For  although  the  Heathens  bordering  on  Europe,  the 
thousands  and  myriads  of  Tartars  have  not  much  to  boast  either  cs 
to  knowledge  or  virtue ;  and  although  the  numerous  little  nations 
under  the  Mogul  who  retain  their  original  Heathenism,  are  nearly 
on  a  level  with  them,  as  are  the  inhabitants  of  the  many  large  and 
populous  islands  in  the  eastern  seas  :  yet  we  hear  high  encomiums 
of  the  Chinese,  who  are  as  numerous  as  all  these  together :  some 
late  travellers  assuring  us,  that  China  alone  has  fifty-eight  millions 
of  inhabitants.  Now  these  have  been  described  as  men  of  the 
deepest  penetration,  the  highest  learning,  and  the  strictest  integrity. 
And  such  doubtless  they  are,  at  least  with  regard  to  their  under- 
standing, if  we  will  believe  their  own  proverb,  "  The  Chinese  havo 
two  eyes,  the  Europeans  one,  and  other  men  none  at  all." 

YoL.  9.~-R 


182  THE   DOCTHIXE   OF  [PART   I.    §    2. 

And  one  circumstance,  it  must  be  owned,  is  much  in  their  favour  : 
They  live  some  thousands  of  miles  off.  So  that  if  it  were  atfirmed, 
That  every  Chinese  had  literally  three  eyes,  it  would  be  difhcult  for 
us  to  disprove  it.  Nevertheless  there  is  room  to  doubt  even  of  their 
miderstanding  :  Nay,  one  of  the  arguments  often  brought  to  prove 
the  greatness,  to  me  clearly  demonstrates  the  littleness  of  it :  namely, 
The  thirty  thousand  letters  of  their  alphabet.  To  keep  an  alphabet 
of  thirty  hundred  letters,  could  never  be  reconciled  to  common 
sense  :  since  every  alphabet  ought  to  be  as  short,  simple,  and  easy 
as  possible.  No  more  can  we  reconcile  to  any  degree  of  common 
sense,  their  crippling  all  the  women  in  the  empire,  by  a  silly,  sense- 
less affectation  of  squeezing  their  feet,  till  they  bear  no  proportion 
to  their  bodies  :  so  that  the  feet  of  a  woman  at  thirty,  must  still  be 
as  small  as  they  would  be  naturally  when  four  years  old.  But  in 
order  to  see  the  true  measure  of  their  understanding  in  the  clearest 
light,  let  us  look  not  at  women  or  the  vulgar,  but  at  the  nobility,  the 
wisest,  the  politest  part  of  the  nation.  Look  at  the  Mandarins,  the 
glory  of  the  empire,  and  see  any,  every  one  of  them  at  his  meals, 
not  deigning  to  use  his  own  hands,  but  having  his  meat  put  into  his 
mouth,  by  two  servants  planted  for  that  purpose,  one  on  his  right 
hand,  the  other  on  his  left !  O  the  deep  understanding  of  the  nobk^ 
lubber  that  sits  in  the  midst,  and 

"  Hiat,  ceil,  pidlus  hirundinis  .'" 
Gapes,  as  the  young  swallow  for  Lis  food. 

Surely,  an  English  ploughman,  or  a  Dutch  sailor,  would  have  too 
jnuch  sense  to  endure  it.  If  you  say.  Nay,  the  Mandarian  would 
not  endure  it,  but  that  it  is  a  custom  :  i  answer.  Undoubtedly  it  is ; 
but  how  came  it  to  be  a  custom  1  Such  a  custom  could  not  have 
begun,  much  less  have  become  general,  but  through  a  general,  and 
marvellous  want  of  common  sense. 

What  their  learning  is  now,  I  know  not:  but  notwithstanding  their 
boast  of  its  antiquity,  it  was  certainly  very  low  and  contemptible  in 
the  last  century,  when  they  were  so  astonished  at  the  skill  of  the 
French  Jesuits,  and  honoured  them  as  almost  more  than  human. 
And  whatever  progress  they  may  have  made  since  in  the  knowledge 
of  astronomy  for  calculating  eclipses,  and  other  curious  rather  than 
useful  sciences,  it  is  certain,  they  are  still  utterly  ignorant  of  what 
it  most  of  all  concerns  them  to  know.  They  know  not  God  any 
more  than  the  Hottentots :  they  are  all  idolaters  to  a  man.  And  so 
tenacious  are  they  of  their  national  idolatry,  that  even  those  whom 
the  French  missionaries  called  converts,  yet  continued  one  and  all, 
to  worship  Confucius,  and  the  souls  of  their  ancestors.  It  is  true, 
that  when  this  was  strongly  represented  at  Rome,  by  an  honest  Do- 
minican who  came  from  thence,  a  bull  was  issued  out  and  sent  over 
into  China,  forbidding  them  to  do  it  any  longer.  But  the  good 
fathers  kept  it  privately  among  themselves,  saying.  The  Chinese  were 
not  able  to  bear  it. 

Such  is  their  religion  with  respect  to  God.     But  are  they  not  emi- 


fAET  I.    §  2.]  ORIGINAL   SI^'.  IBS 

nent  for  all  social  virtues,  all  that  have  place  between  man  and  man '( 
Yes,  according  to  the  accounts  which  some  have  given.  According 
to  these,  they  are  the  glory  oi'  mankind,  and  may  be  a  pattern  to  all. 
Europe.  But  have  not  we  some  reason  to  doubt,  if  these  accounts 
are  true  ?  Are  pride  and  laziness  good  ingredients  of  social  virtue  ? 
Andean  all  Europe  equal  ehherthe  laziness  or  pride  of  the  Chinese 
nobility  and  gentry  ?  Who  are  too  stately  or  too  indolent  even  to 
put  the  meat  hito  their  own  mouths  ?  Yet  they  are  not  too  proud,  or 
too  indolent,  to  oppress,  to  rob,  to  defraud  all  that  fall  into  their  hands : 
how  flagrant  instances  of  this  may  any  one  find  even  in  the  account 
of  Lord  Anson's  voyage  !  Exacdy  agreeing  widi  the  accounts  given 
by  all  our  countrymen,  who  have  traded  in  any  part  of  China :  as 
well  as  with  the  observation  made  by  a  late  writer,  in  his  geographi- 
cal grammar.  '  Trade  and  commerce,  or  rather  clieating  and  over- 
reaching, is  the  natural  bent  and  genius  of  the  Chinese.  Gain  is 
their  god  ;  they  prefer  this  to  every  thing  besides.  A  stranger  is  in 
great  danger  of  being  cheated,  if  he  trusts  to  his  own  judgment. 
And  if  he  employs  a  Chinese-broker,  it  is  well  if  he  does  not  join 
with  the  merchant  to  cheat  the  stranger.  Their  laws  oblige  them  to 
certain  rules  of  civility,  in  their  words  and  actions.  And  they  are 
naturally  a  fawning,  cringing  generation :  but  the  greatest  hypocrites 
on  the  face  of  the  earth.' 

5.  Such  is  the  boasted  virtue  of  those  who  are  beyond  all  degrees 
of  comparison  the  best  and  wisest  of  all  the  Heathens  in  Asia.  And 
how  little  preferable  to  them  are  those  in  Europe !  Rather,  how 
many  degrees  beneath  them  ?  Vast  numbers  of  these  are  within  the 
borders  of  Muscovy.  But  how  amazingly  ignorant!  How  totally 
void  both  of  civil  and  sacred  wisdom  !  How  shockhigly  savage  both 
in  their  tempers  and  manners !  Their  idolatry  is  of  the  basest  and 
vilest  kind.  They  not  only  worehip  the  work  of  their  own  hands, 
but  idols  of  the  most  horrid  and  detestable  forms  that  men  or  devils 
could  devise.  Equally  savage,  (or  more  so,  if  more  can  be,)  as  is 
well  known,  are  the  natives  of  Lapland  :  and  indeed  of  all  the  coun- 
tries which  have  been  discovered  to  the  north  of  Muscovy  or  Sweden. 
In  truth,  the  bulk  of  these  nations  seem  to  be  considerably  more  bar- 
barous, not  only  than  the  men  near  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope,  but 
than  many  tribes  in  the  brute  creation. 

Thus  have  we  seen  what  is  the  present  state  of  the  Heathens  in 
every  part  of  the  known  world.  And  these  still  make  up,  according 
to  the  precedhig  calculation,  very  near  two-thirds  of  mankind.  Let 
us  now  calmly  and  impartially  consider,  What  manner  of  men  the 
Mahometans  in  general  are. 

6.  An  ingenious  writer,  who,  a  few  years  ago,  published  a  pompous 
translation  of  the  Koran,  takes  great  pains  to  give  us  a  very  favour- 
able opinion  botli  of  Mahomet  and  his  followers.  But  he  cannot 
wash  the  Ethiop  white.  After  all,  men  who  have  but  a  moderate 
share  of  reason,  cannot  but  observe  in  his  Koran,  even  as  polished 
by  Mr.  Sale,  the  most  gross  and  impious  absurdities.  To  cite  par- 
ticulars is  not  now  my  business.  It  may  suffice  to  observe  in  general, 
(hat   human  understanding  must  be  debased  to  an  inconceivable  de  > 


184  THE   DOCTRHsE   or  [PART  I.    §2, 

gree,  in  those  who  can  swallow  such  absurdities  as  divinely  revealed 
And  yet  we  know  the  Mahometans  not  only  condemn  all  who  can- 
not swallow  them  to  everlasting  lire  ;  not  only  appropriate  to  them- 
selves the  title  of  JMussuhnen,  or  True  Believers ;  but  even  anathe- 
matize with  the  utmost  bitterness,  and  adjudge  to  eternal  destruction, 
all  their  brethren  of  the  sect  of  Hali,  all  who  contend  for  a  figurative 
interpretation  of  them. 

That  these  men  then  have  no  knowledge  or  love  of  God  is  unde- 
niably manifest,  not  only  from  their  gross,  horrible  notions  of  him. 
but  from  their  not  loving  their  brethren.  But  they  have  not  always 
so  weighty  a  cause  to  hate  and  murder  one  another,  as  difference  of 
opinion.  Mahometans  will  butcher  each  other  by  thousands,  without 
.so  plausible  a  plea  as  this.  Why  is  it  that  such  numbers  of  Turks 
and  Persians  have  stabbed  one  another  in  cool  blood  ?  Truly  be- 
cause they  differ  in  the  manner  of  dressing  their  head.  The  Ottoman 
Tehementiy  maintains,  (for  he  has  unquestionable  tradition  on  his  side,) 
that  a  JMussulman  should  wear  a  round  turban.  Whereas  the  Persian 
insists  upon  his  liberty  of  conscience,  and  will  wear  it  picked  before. 
So,  for  this  wonderful  reason,  when  a  more  plausible  one  is  wanting, 
ihey  beat  out  each  other's  brains  from  generation  to  generation. 

It  is  not,  therefore,  strange,  that  ever  since  the  religion  of  Mahomer 
appeared  in  the  world,  tlie  espousers  of  it,  particularly  those  undei 
the  Turkish  emperor,  have  been  as  wolves  and  tigers  to  all  othei- 
nations,  rending  and  tearing  all  that  fell  into  their  merciless  paws, 
and  grinding  them  with  their  iron  teeth :  that  numberless  cities  are 
razed  from  the  foundation,  and  only  their  name  remaining  :  that  many 
countries  which  were  once  as  the  garden  of  God,  are  now  a  desolate 
wilderness ;  and  that  so  many  once  numerous  and  powerful  nation.s 
are  vanished  away  from  the  earth  !  Such  was,  and  is  at  this  day  the 
ji'age,  the  fury,  the  revenge,  of  these  destroyers  of  human-kind ! 

7.  Proceed  we  now  to  the  Christian  world.  But  we  must  not 
judge  of  Christians  in  general,  from  those  who  are  scattered  through 
(the  Turkish  dominions,  the  Armenian,  Georgian,  Mingrelian  Chris- 
tians :  nor  indeed  from  any  others  of  the  Greek  communion.  The 
gross,  barbarous  ignorance,  the  deep,  stupid  superstition,  the  blind 
and  bitter  zeal,  and  the  endless  thirst  after  vain  jangling  and  strife  of 
words,  which  have  reigned  for  many  ages  in  the  Greek  church,  and 
well-nigh  banished  true  religion  from  among  them  ;  make  these 
scarcely  worthy  of  the  Christian  name,  and  lay  an  insuperable  stum- 
bling-block before  the  Mahometans. 

8.  Perhaps  those  of  the  Romish  communion  may  say,  '  What 
wonder,  that  this  is  the  case  with  lieretics ' — With  those  who  have 
erred  from  the  Catholic  faith,  nay,  and  left  the  pale  of  the  church  V 
But  what  is  the  case  with  them  who  have  not  left  that  church,  and 
who  retain  the  Roman  faith  still  ?  Yea,  with  the  most  zealous  of  all 
its  patrons,  the  inhabitants  of  Italy,  of  Spain  and  Portugal  1  Wherein 
do  they  excel  the  Greek  church,  except  in  Ilalianism  ?  received  by 
tradition  from  their  Heathen  fathers,  and  diffused  through  every  city 
and  village.  They  may  indeed  praise  chasthy  and  rail  at  women,  as 
loudly  as  their  forefather  Juvenal.     But  what  is  the  moral  of  all  this ' 


TART  I.    §  2.J  ORIGINAL   SIX.  18.> 

"  J^omie  putas  vielhis,  quod  tecum  pusio  dormil  .<"' 

This  it  must  be  acknowledged,  is  the  glory  of  the  Romish  church. 
Herein  it  does  excel  the  Greek. 

They  excel  it  likewise  in  Deism.  Perhaps  there  is  no  country  in. 
the  world,  at  least,  in  tliat  part  of  it,  wliich  bears  the  Christian  name- 
wherein  so  large  a  proportion  of  the  men  of  education,  are  absolute 
Deists,  if  not  Atheists,  as  Italy.  And  from  hence  the  plague  has 
spread  far  and  wide,  through  France  in  particular.  So  that  did  not 
temporal  motives  restraiji,  no  small  part  of  the  French  nobility  and 
gentry,  would  pay  no  more  regard  to  the  Christian  revelation,  than  do 
the  Mandarins  in  China. 

They  excel  still  more  in  murder,  both  private  and  public.  Instances 
of  the  former  abound  all  over  Italy,  Spain,  and  Portugal.  And 
the  frequency  of  shedding  blood  has  taken  away  all  that  horror  which 
otherwise  might  attend  it.  Take  one  instance  of  a  thousand.  An 
English  gentleman  was  some  years  ago  at  an  entertainment  in  Brescia, 
when  one  who  was  near  him  whispered  a  fe^v  words  in  his  ear,  which 
he  did  not  well  understand.  He  asked  his  host,  '  What  did  that  gen- 
tleman mean  by  these  words  1'  And  was  answered,  '  That  he  will 
murder  you.  And  an  Italian  is  never  worse  than  his  word  in  this. 
You  have  no  way  but  to  be  beforehand  with  him.'  This  he  rejected 
with  abhorrence.  But  his  host,  it  seems,  being  not  of  so  tender  a 
conscience  sent  a  stranger  to  him  in  the  morning,  who  said,  '  Sir, 
look  out  of  your  window,  I  have  done  his  business.  There  he  lies. 
You  will  please  to  give  me  my  pay.'  He  pulled  out  a  handful  of 
money,  in  great  disorder,  and  cried,  '  There,  fake  what  you  will.' 
The  other  replied,  '  Sir,  I  am  a  man  of  honour :  1  take  only  my  pay :' 
took  a  small  piece  of  silver,  and  retired. 

This  was  a  man  of  honour  among  the  Christians  of  the  Romish 
church  !  And  many  such  are  to  be  found  all  over  Italy,  whose  trade 
it  is,  to  cut  throats ;  to  stab,  for  hire,  in  cool  blood.  They  have  men 
of  conscience  too.  Such  were  two  of  the  Catholic  soldiers  under  the 
famous  Duke  of  Alva,  who  broke  into  the  house  of  a  poor  country- 
man in  Flanders,  butchered  him  and  his  wife  with  five  or  six  chil- 
dren ;  and  after  they  had  finished  their  work,  sat  down,  to  enjoy  the 
i'ruit  of  their  labour.  But  in  the  midst  of  their  meal,  conscience 
awaked.  One  of  them  started  up  in  great  emotion,  and  cried  out, 
-'  O  Lord !  What  have  I  done  ?  As  I  hope  for  salvation,  I  have 
eaten  flesh  in  Lent !'   • 

The  same  sort  of  conscience  undoubtedly  it  was,  which  constrained 
the  late  most  Christian  king,  in  defiance  of  the  most  solemn  treaties, 
yea,  of  all  ties,  divine  and  human,  most  graciously  to  murder  so  many- 
thousands  of  his  quiet  unresisting  subjects :  to  order  his  dragoons, 
wherever  they  found  the  Protestants  worshipping  God,  to  fall  in  upon 
them,  sword  in  hand,  without  any  regard  to  sex  or  age.  It  was  con- 
.science,  no  question,  which  induced  so  many  of  the  dukes  of  Savoy, 
notwithstanding  the  public  faith  engaged  over  and  over,  to  shed  the 
blood  of  their  loyal  subjects,  the  Vaudois,  like  water,  to  ravage  then' 
fields  and  destroy  iheir  cities.  What  but  conscience  could  move  the 
good  Catholics  of  a  neighbouring  kingdom  in  the  last  century,  ta 

R3 


18G  THE   DOCTRINE   OF  [pAET  I.    §2. 

murder  (according  to  their  own  account,)  two  hundred  and  fifteen 
thousand  protestanls  in  six  months  ?  A  costly  sacrifice  this !  What 
is  a  hecatomb,  a  hundred  oxen,  to  two  hundred  thousand  men  ?  And 
yet  what  is  even  this  to  the  whole  number  of  victims  who  have  been 
offered  up  in  Europe  since  the  beginning  of  the  reformation  ?  Partly 
by  war,  partly  by  the  inquisition,  and  a  thousand  other  methods  ol 
Romish  cruelty  ?  No  less  within  forty  years,  if  the  computation  oi 
an  eminent  writer  be  just,  than  five  and  forty  millions ! 

Such  is  the  conscience,  such  the  religion  of  Romish  Christians  ! 
Of  their  inquisition,  {the  house  of  mercy,  as  it  is  most  unfortunately 
called,)  I  should  give  some  account,  but  that  it  has  been  largely  de- 
!*cribed  by  others.  Yet  it  may  not  be  improper  to  give  a  specimen  of 
that  mercy  which  they  show  to  those  under  their  care.  At  the  act  of 
faith,  so  called,  which  was  celebrated  some  years  ago,  ^vhen  Dr.  Ged- 
des  was  in  Portugal,  a  prisoner,  who  had  been  confined  nine  years, 
was  brought  out  to  execution.  Looking  up  and  seeing  what  he  had 
not  seen  for  so  long  a  time,  the  sun  in  the  midst  of  heaven,  he  cried 
out,  '  How  can  any  who  sees  that  glorious  creature,  worship  any  but 
the  God  that  made  It  ?'  The  father  who  attended,  immediately  order- 
ed a  gag  to  be  run  through  his  lip,  that  he  might  speak  no  more. 

See  the  Christians,  who  have  received  all  the  advantages  of  educa- 
tion ;  all  the  helps  of  ancient  and  modern  learning !  '  Nay,  but  we 
have  still  greater  helps  than  they  :  we  are  reformed  from  the  errors  ot 
popery  :  we  protest  against  all  those  novel  corruptions,  with  which 
the  church  of  Rome  has  polluted  ancient  Christianity.  The  enormi- 
ties, therefore,  of  popish  countries,  are  not  to  be  charged  upon  us  :  we 
are  Protestants,  and  liave  nothing  to  do  with  the  vices  and  villanies  ol 
Homish  nations.' 

9.  Have  we  not  ?  Are  Protestant  nations  nothing  concerned  in 
those  melancholy  reflections  of  Mr.  Cowley.  '  If  twenty  thousand 
naked  Americans  were  not  able  to  resist  the  assaults  of  but  twenty 
lyell-armed  Spaniards,  how  is  it  possible  for  one  honest  man  to  de- 
fend himself  against  twenty  thousand  knaves,  who  are  all  furnished 
cap-ape  with  the  defensive  arms  of  worldly  prudence,  and  the  ofFen- 
si^'e  too  of  craft  and  malice  ?  He  will  find  no  less  odds  than  this 
against  him,  if  he  have  much  to  do  in  human  aflfairs.  Do  you  won- 
der then  that  a  virtuous  man  should  love  to  be  alone  ?  It  is  hard  for 
him  to  be  otherwise.  He  is  so  when  he  is  among  ten  thousand.  Nor 
is  it  so  uncomfortable,  to  be  alone  without  any  other  creature,  as  it  is 
to  be  alone  in  the  midst  of  wild  beasts.  Man  is  to  man  all  kinds  ol 
beasts,  a  fawning  dog,  a  roaring  lion,  a  thieving  fox,  a  robbing  woll. 
a  dissembling  crocodile,  a  treacherous  decoy,  and  a  rapacious  vulture 
The  civilest,  methinks,  of  all  nations  are  those  whom  we  account  the 
most  barbarous.  There  is  some  moderation  and  good  nature  in  th; 
Toupinambaltions,  who  eat  no  men  but  their  enemies :  while  we 
learned,  and  polite,  and  Christian  Europeans,  like  so  many  pikes  and 
sharks,  prey  upon  every  thing  that  we  can  swallow.' 

Are  Protestant  nations  nothing  concerned  in  that  humorous,  bul 
terrible  picture  drawn  by  a  late  eminent  hand  ?  '  He  was  perfecth 
astonished  (and  who  would  iiot,  if  it  were  tJie  first  time  he  had  heart' 


X'ART  I.    §2.]  ORIGINAL  SIX.  18T 

it  ?)  at  the  historical  account  I  gave  him  of  our  affairs  during  the  last 
century :  protesting  it  was  only  a  heap  of  conspiracies,  rebellions, 
murders,  massacres  ;  the  very  worst  effects  that  avarice,  faction,  hy- 
pocrisy, perfidiousness,  cruelty,  rage,  madness,  hatred,  envy,  lust 
malice,  and  ambition  could  produce. — Even  in  times  of  peace,  how 
many  innocent  and  excellent  persons,  have  been  condemned  to  death 
or  banishment,  by  great  ministers  practising  upon  the  corruption  of 
judges,  and  the  malice  of  factions !  How  many  villains  have  been 
exalted  to  the  highest  places  of  trust,  power,  dignhy,  and  profit !  B j" 
what  methods  have  great  numbers  in  all  countries  procured  titles  of 
honour  and  vast  estates  ?  Perjury,  oppression,  subordination,  fraud, 
panderism  were  some  of  the  most  excusable.  For  many  owed  their 
greatness  to  sodomy  or  incest :  others,  to  the  prostituting  of  their  own 
wives  or  daughters  ;  others,  to  the  betraying  of  their  country,  or  their 
prince  :  more,  to  the  perverting  of  justice  to  destroy  the  innocent.' 
Well  might  that  keen  author  add,  '  If  a  creature,  pretending  to  rea 
son,  can  be  guilty  of  such  enormities,  certainly  the  corruption  of  thai 
faculty  is  far  worse  tlian  brutality  itself..' 

Now,  are  Popish  nations  only  concerned  in  this  ?  Are  the  Pro- 
testant quite  clear  ?  Is  there  no  such  thing  among  them,  (to  take  one 
instance  only,)  as  '  perverting  of  justice,'  even  in  public  courts  of 
■judicature  ?  Can  it  not  be  said  in  any  Protestant  country,  '  There  is 
a  society  of  men  among  us,  bred  up  from  their  youth  in  the  art  of 
proving,  according  as  they  are  paid,  by  words  multiplied  for  the  pur 
pose,  that  white  is  black,  and  black  is  white  ?  For  example  :  if  mj 
neighbour  has  a  mind  to  my  cow,  he  hires  a  lawyer  to  prove  that  he 
ought  to  have  my  cow  from  me.  I  must  hire  another,  to  defend  my 
right,  it  being  against  all  rules  of  law,  that  a  man  should  speak  for 
himself  In  pleading  they  do  not  dwell  on  the  merits  of  the  cause 
but  upon  circumstances  foreign  thereto.  For  instance  :  they  do  not 
take  the  shortest  method  to  know,  what  title  my  adversary  has  to  my 
cow  :  but  whether  the  cow  be  red  or  black,  her  horns  long  or  short : 
Tvhether  the  field  she  graze  in  be  round  or  square,  and  the  like.  After 
^vhich  they  adjourn  the  cause  from  time  to  time,  and  in  ten  or  twenty 
years  time  come  to  an  issue.  Tliis  society  likewise  has  a  peculiar 
<:ant  and  jargon  of  their  ou^n,  in  which  all  their  laws  are  written 
And  these  they  take  special  care  to  multiply :  whereby  they  have  so 
confounded  truth  and  falsehood,  right  and  wrong,  that  it  will  take 
twelve  years  to  decide,  whether  the  field  left  me  by  my  ancestors  for 
six  generations,  belong  to  me,  or  to  one  three  hundred  miles  off.' 

Is  it  in  Popish  countries  only  that  it  can  be  said,  '  It  does  not  ap- 
pear that  any  one  perfection  is  required  toward  the  procurement  of 
any  one  station  among  you :  much  less,  that  men  are  ennobled  on 
account  of  their  virtue ;  that  priests  are  advanced  for  their  piety  or 
learning,  judges  for  their  integrity,  senators  for  the  love  of  theii 
country,  or  counsellors  for  their  wisdom.' 

10.  But  there  is  a  still  greater  and  more  undeniable  proof,  that  the 
very  foundations  of  all  things,  civil  and  religious,  are  utterly  out  of 
course,  in  the  Christian  as  well  as  the  Heathen  world.  There  is  a 
still  more  horrid  reproach  to  the  Christian  name,  yea,  to  the  name  of 


188  THE   DOCTRINE   OF  [PART  I.    §2. 

man,  to  all  reason  and  humanity.  There  is  Wiar  in  the  world !  War 
between  men !  War  between  Christians !  1  mean  between  those 
that  bear  the  name  of  Christ,  and  profess  to  walk  as  he  also  tcalked. 
Now  who  can  reconcile  war,  I  will  not  say  to  religion,  but  to  any 
degree  of  reason  or  common  sense  ? 

But  is  there  not  a  cause?  O  yes,  'The  causes  of  war  (as  the 
same  writer  observes)  are  innumerable.  Some  of  the  chief  are 
these  ;  the  ambition  of  princes  ;  or  the  corruption  of  their  ministers. 
Difference  of  opinion  ,  as  whether  flesh  be  bread,  or  bread  be  flesh  ? 
Whether  the  juice  of  the  grape  be  blood  or  wine  ?  What  is  the  best 
colour  for  a  coat,  whether  black,  white,  or  gray  ;  and  whether  it 
should  be  long  or  short  ?  Whether  narrow  or  wide  ?  Nor  are  there 
any  wars  so  furious  as  those  occasioned  by  such  difference  of  opi- 
nions. 

'  Sometimes  two  princes  make  war,  to  decide  which  of  them  slial! 
dispossess  a  third  of  his  dominions.  Sometimes  a  war  is  commenced, 
because  another  prince  is  too  strong :  sometimes  because  he  is  too 
weak.  Sometimes  our  neighbours  want  the  fliings  wliich  we  have, 
or  have  the  things  which  we  want.  So  both  fight,  until  they  take 
ours,  or  we  take  theirs.  It  is  a  reason  for  invading  a  coiuitry,  if  the 
people  have  been  wasted  by  famine,  aestroyed  by  pestilence,  or  em- 
broiled by  faction :  or  to  attack  our  nearest  ally,  if  part  of  his  land 
would  make  our  dominions  more  round  and  compact. 

'  Another  cause  of  making  war  is  this.  A  crew  are  driven  by  a 
storm  they  know  not  whither ;  at  length  they  make  land  and  go 
ashore,  they  are  entertained  with  kindness.  They  give  the  country 
a  new  name  ;  set  up  a  stone  or  rotten  plank  for  a  memorial ;  murder 
a  dozen  of  the  natives,  and  bring  away  a  couple  by  force.  Here 
commences  a  new  right  of  dom'mion ;  ships  are  sent,  and  the  natives 
driven  out  or  destroyed.  And  this  is  done  to  civilize  and  convert  a 
barbarous  and  idolatrous  people.' 

But  whatever  be  the  cause,  let  us  calmly  and  impartially  consider 
the  thing  itself  Here  are  forty  thousand  men  gathered  together  on 
this  plain.  What  are  they  goitig  to  do  ?  See !  there  are  thirty  or 
forty  thousand  more  at  a  little  distance.  And  these  are  going  to  shoot 
them  through  the  head  or  body,  to  stab  them,  or  split  their  sculls,  and 
send  most  of  tlieir  souls  into  everlasting  fire,  as  fast  as  possibly  they 
can.  Why  so,  what  harm  have  they  done  to  them  ?  O  none  at  all. 
They  do  not  so  much  as  knoTV  them.  But  a  man,  who  is  king  of 
France,  has  a  quarrel  with  another  man,  who  is  king  of  England. 
So  these  Frenchmen  are  to  kill  as  many  of  these  Englishmen  as 
they  can,  to  prove  die  king  of  France  is  in  the  right.  Now  what  an 
argument  is  this !  What  a  method  of  proof!  What  an  amazing 
way  of  deciding  controversies  !  What  must  mankind  be,  before  such 
a  thing  as  war  could  ever  be  known,  or  thought  of  upon  earfli !. 
How  shocking,  how  inconceivable  a  want  must  there  have  been  oi 
common  understanding,  as  well  as  common  humanity,  before  an} 
two  governors,  or  any  two  nations  in  the  universe,  could  once  fliink 
of  such  a  method  of  decision  !  If  then  all  nations.  Pagan,  Mahomet 
an,  and  Christian,  do  in  fact  make  this  their  last  resort :  what  farther 


.PART  r.  §  2.]  ORIGINAL  SlJf.  1"89^ 

proof  do  we  need  of  the  utter  degeneracy  of  all  nations,  from  the 
plainest  principles  of  reason  and  virtue  ?  Of  the  absolute  want 
both  of  common  sense  and  common  humanity,  which  runs  through 
the  whole  race  of  mankind  1 

In  how  just  and  strong  a  light  is  this  placed  by  the  writer  cited  be- 
fore !  <  I  gave  him  a  description  of  cannons,  muskets,  pistols, 
swords,  bayonets ;  of  sieges,  attacks,  mines,  countermines,  bom- 
bardments ;  of  engagements  by  sea  and  land  ;  ships  sunk  with  a 
thousand  men,  twenty  thousand  killed  on  each  side,  dying  groans, 
limbs  flying  in  the  air ;  smoke,  noise,  trampling  to  death  under 
horses'  feet,  flight,  pursuit,  victory ;  fields  strewed  with  carcasses  left 
for  food  to  dogs  and  beasts  of  prey ;  and  farther,  of  plundering, 
stripping,  ravishing,  burning,  and  destroying.  I  assured  him,  1  had 
seen  a  hundred  enemies  blown  up  at  once  in  a  siege,  and  as  many 
in  a  ship,  and  beheld  the  dead  bodies  drop  down  in  pieces  from  the 
clouds,  to  the  great  diversion  of  the  spectators.' 

Is  it  not  astonishing,  beyond  all  expression,  that  this  is  the  naked 
truth !  That  within  a  short  term  of  years,  this  has  been  the  real 
case,  in  almost  every  part  of  even  the  Christian  world  !  And  mean- 
while we  gravely  talk  of  the  Dignity  of  our  JSTature,  in  its  present 
state  !  This  is  really  surprising,  and  might  easily  drive  even  a  well- 
tempered  man  to  say,  '  One  might  bear  with  men,  if  they  would  be 
content  with  those  vices  and  follies  to  which  nature  has  entitled  them- 
I  am  not  provoked  at  the  sight  of  a  pickpocket,  a  gamester,  a  poli- 
tician, a  suborner,  a  traitor,  or  the  like.  This  is  all  according  to  the 
natural  course  of  things.  But  when  I  behold  a  lump  of  deformit} 
and  diseases,  both  in  body  and  mind,  smitten  with  pride,  it  breaks 
all  the  measures  of  my  patience.  Neither  shall  I  ever  be  able  to 
comprehend,  how  such  an  animal  and  such  a  vice  can  tally  together.^ 

And  surely  all  our  declamations  on  the  strength  of  human  rea- 
son, and  the  eminence  of  our  virtues,  are  no  more  than  the  cant 
and  jargon  of  pride  and  ignorance,  so  long  as  there  is  such  a  thing 
as  war  in  the  world.  Men  in  general  can  never  be  allowed  to  be 
reasonable  creatures,  till  they  know  not  war  any  more  So  long  as 
this  monster  stalks  uncontrolled,  where  is  reason,  virtue,  humanity  1 
They  are  utterly  excluded  ;  they  have  no  place  ;  they  are  a  name 
and  nothing  more.  If  even  a  heathen  were  to  give  an  account  oi 
an  age,  wherein  reason  and  virtue  reigned,  he  would  allow  no  way 
to  have  place  therein.     So  Ovid  of  the  golden  age. 

•Vonrfi^nt  prcBcipiUs  cingebant  oppirla  fossce. : 

Jfon  galeae,  non  ensis  erat      nine  militis  usu 

JMullia  securCE  peragebant  otia  genles. 
Steep  ditches  did  not  then  the  towns  surround,  , 

Nor  glitt'ring  helm,  nor  slaught'ring  sword  was  found. 
Nor  arms  had  they  to  wield,  nor  wars  to  wage, 
But  peace  and  safety  crown'd  the  blissful  age. 

1 1 .  How  far  is  the  world  at  present  from  this  state  !  Yet  when 
we  speak  of  the  folly  and  wickedness  of  mankind,  may  we  not  ex- 
cept our  own  country.  Great  Britain  and  Ireland  1  In  these  we  have 
such  advantages  for  improvement,  both  in  knowledge  and  virtue,  as 


190  THE   DOCTRINE   OF  [PAKT  I.  §  Q--. 

scarcely  any  other  nation  enjoys.  We  are  under  an  excellent  con- 
stitution, which  secures  both  our  religious  and  civil  liberty.  We 
have  religion  taught  in  its  primitive  purity,  its  genuine,  native  simpli- 
city. And  how  it  prospers  among  us,  we  may  know  with  great  ease 
and  certainty.  For  we  depend  not  on  hearsay,  on  the  report  ol 
others,  or  on  subtle  and  uncertain  reasonings,  but  may  see  every 
thing  with  our  own  eyes,  and  hear  it  with  our  own  ears.  Well 
then,  to  make  all  the  allowance  possible,  we  will  suppose  manknid  in 
general  to  be  on  a  level,  with  regard  to  knowledge  and  virtue, 
even  with  the  inhabitants  of  our  fortunate  islands :  and  take  our 
measure  of  them,  from  the  present  undeniable  state  of  our  own 
countrymen. 

In  order  to  take  a  thorough  survey  of  these,  let  us  begin  with  the 
lowest,  and  proceed  upward.  The  bulk  of  the  natives  of  Ireland 
are  to  be  found  iu  or  near  their  little  cabins  throughout  the  kingdom, 
most  of  which  are  their  own  workmanship,  consisting  of  four  earthen 
Walls,  covered  with  straw  or  sods,  with  one  opening  in  the  side-wall, 
which  serves  at  once  for  door,  window,  and  chimney.  Here  in  one 
room  are  the  cow  and  pig,  the  woman  with  her  children,  and  the 
master  of  the  family.  Now  what  knowledge  have  these  rational 
animals  1  They  know  to  plant  and  boil  their  potatoes,  to  milk  theiv 
cow,  and  to  put  their  clothes  on  and  otF,  if  they  have  any  besides  a 
blanket.  But  other  knowledge  they  have  none,  unless  in  religion, 
And  how  much  do  they  know  of  this  1  A  Httle  more  than  the  Hot- 
tentots, aiid  not  much.  They  know  the  names  of  God,  and  Christ, 
and  the  Virgin  Mary.  They  know  a  little  of  St.  Patrick,  the  pope, 
and  the  priest :  how  to  tell  tlieir  beads,  to  say  *^ve  Maria  and  Paie:-,- 
JSToster :  to  do  what  penance  they  are  bid,  to  hear  mass,  confess,  and 
pay  so  much  for  the  pardon  of  their  sins.  But  as  to  the  nature  of 
religion,  the  life  of  God  in  the  soul,  they  know  no  more  (I  will  not 
say,  than  the  priest,  but)  than  the  beasts  of  the  field. 

And  how  very  little  above  these  are  the  numerous  inhabitants  of 
the  northern  parts  of  Scotland,  or  of  the  islands  which  lie  either  on 
the  west  or  the  north  side  of  that  kingdom  !  What  knowledge  have 
these  1  And  what  religion  1  Their  religion  usually  lies  in  a  single 
point,  in  implicitly  beheving  the  head  of  their  clan,  and  implicitly 
doing  what  he  bids.*  Meantime  they  are,  one  and  all,  as  ignorant 
of  rational,  scriptural  religion  as  of  algebra ;  and  altogether  as  hv 
from  the  practice,  as  from  the  theory  of  it. 

'  But  it  is  not  so  in  England.  The  very  lowest  of  the  people  are 
here  better  instructed.'  1  should  be  right  glad  to  find  it  so  :  but  I 
doubt  a  fair  trial  will  show  the  contrary.  I  am  afraid  we  may  still 
say,  of  thousands,  myriads  of  peasants,  men,  women,  and  children, 
throughout  our  nation, 

'  Wild  as  the  iinlaua;!)!  Indian's  brood, 

The  Christian  savages  remain  ; 
Strangers,  yea,  enemies  to  God, 

They  make  thee  spend  thy  blood  in  ?ain.' 

*  By  a  late  act  of  parliament,  there  b  a  happy  alteration  made  in  this  particular, 


fABT  I.  §  2.]  ORIGINAL   SIS,  10  J 

The  generality  of  English  peasants  are  not  only  grossly,  stupidly,  I 
had  almost  said,  brutishly  ignorant,  as  to  all  the  arts  of  this  life,  but 
eminently  so,  with  regard  to  religion  and  the  life  to  come.  Ask  a 
countryman.  What  is  faith  ?  What  is  repentance  1  What  is  holi- 
ness ?  What  is  true  religion  1  And  he  is  no  more  able  to  give  you 
an  intelligible  answer,  than  if  you  were  to  ask  him  about  the  North- 
East  Passage,  Is  there  then  any  possibility  that  they  should  prac- 
tise what  they  know  nothing  of?  If  religion  is  not  even  in  their 
heads,  can  it  be  in  their  hearts  or  lives  1  It  cannot.  Nor  is  there 
the  least  savour  thereof,  either  in  their  tempers  or  conversation. 
Neither  in  the  one  nor  the  other  do  they  rise  one  jot  above  the  pitch 
of  a  Turk  or  a  heathen. 

Perhaps  it  will  be  said,  '  Whatever  the  clowns  in  the  midland 
counties  are,  the  people  near  the  sea-coasts  are  more  civilized.' 
Yes,  great  numbers  of  them  are,  in  and  near  all  our  ports  :  many 
thousands  there  are  civilized  by  smuggling.  The  numbers  con- 
cerned herein  upon  all  our  coasts,  are  far  greater  than  can  be  ima- 
gined. But  what  reason  and  what  religion  have  these  that  trample 
on  all  laws,  divine  and  human,  by  a  course  of  thieving,  or  receiving 
stolen  goods,  of  plundering  their  king  and  country  1  I  say  king  and 
country  :  seeing  whatever  is  taken  from  the  king,  is  in  effect  taken 
irom  the  country,  who  are  obliged  to  make  up  all  deficiencies  in  the 
royal  revenue.  These  are  therefore  general  robbers.  They  rob 
you  and  me,  and  every  one  of  their  countrymen :  seeing  had  the 
king  his  due  customs,  a  great  part  of  our  taxes  might  be  spared. 
A  smuggler  then,  (and  in  proportion  every  seller  or  buyer  of  uncus- 
tomed goods,)  is  a  thief  of  the  first  order,  a  highwayman  or  pick- 
pocket of  the  worst  sort.  Let  not  any  of  those  prate  about  reason 
or  religion.  It  is  an  amazing  instance  of  human  folly,  that  ever}' 
government  in  Europe  does  not  drive  these  vermin  away  into  landy 
not  inhabited. 

We  are  all  indebted  to  those  detachments  of  the  army,  which  have 
cleared  some  of  our  coasts  of  these  public  nuisances.  And  indeed 
}nany  of  that  body  have,  in  several  respects,  deserved  well  of  their 
country.  Yet  can  we  say  of  the  soldiery  in  general,  that  they  are 
men  of  reason  and  religion  ?  I  fear  not.  Are  not  the  bulk  of  them 
void  of  almost  all  knowledge,  divine  and  human  ?  And  is  their  vir- 
tue more  eminent  than  their  knowledge  1  But  I  spare  them.  May 
God  be  merciful  to  them  !  May  he  be  glorified  by  their  reformation, 
rather  than  their  destruction  ! 

Is  there  any  more  knov/ledge  or  virtue  in  that  body  of  men  (some 
hundreds  of  thousands)  the  English  seniors  ?  Surely  not.  It  is  not 
without  cause,  that  a  ship  has  been  called  a  floating  hell.  What 
power,  what  form  of  religion  is  to  be  found  in  nine  out  of  ten,  shall 
I  say  ?  Or  ninety-nine  out  of  a  hundred,  either  of  our  merchant- 
men or  men  of  war  ?  What  do  the  men  in  them  think  or  know 
about  religion  ?  What  do  they  practise  ?  Either  sailors  or  marines  1 
I  doubt  whether  any  heathen  sailors,  in  any  country  or  age,  Greek, 
Roman,  or  barbarian,  ever  came  up  to  ours,  for  profound  ignorance 


192  THE   DOCTEINE    OF  [PAKT  I.  §  2, 

and  barefaced,  shameless,  and  shocking  impiety.  Add  to  these,  out 
of  our  renowned  metropolis,  the  whole  brood  of  porters,  draymen, 
cartmen,  hackney-coachmen,  and,  I  am  sorry  to  say,  noblemen  and 
gentle:nen's  footmen,  (together  making  up  some  thousands,)  and  you 
will  have  such  a  collection  of  knowing  and  pious  Christians  as  all 
Europe  cannot  exceed. 

'  But  all  men  are  not  like  these.'  No,  it  is  pity  they  should.  And 
yet  how  little  better  are  the  retailers  of  brandy  or  gin,  the  inhabit- 
ants of  blind  ale-houses,  the  oyster-women,  fish-wives,  and  other 
good  creatures  about  Billingsgate,  and  the  various  clans  of  pedlars 
and  hawkers,  that  patrol  through  the  streets,  or  ply  in  Rag-fair,  and 
other  places  of  public  resort.  These  likewise  amount  to  several 
thousands,  even  within  the  Bills  of  Mortality.  And  what  know- 
ledge have  they  ?  What  religion  are  they  of]  What  morality  do 
they  practise  ? 

*  But  these  have  had  no  advantage  of  education,  many  of  them 
scarcely  being  able  to  write  or  read.'  Proceed  we  then  to  those 
who  have  had  these  advantages,  the  officers  of  the  excise  and  customs. 
Are  these,  in  general,  men  of  reason  1  Who  think  with  clearness 
and  connexion,  and  speak  pertinently  on  a  given  subject  ?  Are  they 
men  of  religion  ?  Sober,  temperate  ?  Fearing  God,  and  working 
righteousness  1  Having  a  conscience  void  of  offence  toward  God 
and  toward  man  1  How  many  do  you  find  of  this  kind  among  them? 
Men  that  fear  an  oath,  that  fear  perjury  more  than  death  ?  That 
would  die  rather  than  neglect  any  part  of  that  duty  which  they  have 
isworn  to  perform  ?  That  would  sooner  be  torn  in  pieces,  than  suf- 
fer any  man,  under  any  pretence,  to  defraud  his  majesty  of  his  just 
right  ]  How  many  of  them  will  not  be  deterred  from  doing  their 
duty,  either  by  fear  or  favour  ?  Regard  no  threatenings  in  the  exe- 
cution of  their  office,  and  accept  no  bribes,  called  presents  ?  These 
only  are  wise  and  honest  men.  Set  down  all  the  rest  as  having  nei- 
ther religion  nor  sound  reason. 

"  But  surely  tradesmen  have."  Some  of  them  have  both  :  and  in 
an  eminent  degree.  Some  of  our  tradesmen  are  an  honour  to  the 
nation.  But  are  the  bulk  of  them  so  ?  Are  a  vast  majority  of  our 
tradesmen,  whether  in  town  or  country,  I  will  not  say,  religious,  but 
honest  men?  Who  shall  judge  whether  they  are  or  not?  Perhaps  you 
think  St.  Paul  is  too  strict.  Let  us  appeal  then  to  Cicero,  an  honest 
Heathen.  Now,  when  he  is  laying  down  rules  of  honesty  between 
man  and  man  he  proposes  two  cases.  • 

1.  Antisthenes  brings  a  ship-load  of  corn  to  Rhodes,  at  a  time  of 
great  scarcity.  The  Rhodians  flock  about  him  to  buy.  He  knows 
that  five  other  ships  laden  with  corn  will  be  there  to-morrow. 
Ought  he  to  tell  the  Rhodians  this,  before  he  sells  his  own  corn  ? 
Undoubtedly  he  ought,  says  the  Heathen.  Otherwise  he  makes  a 
gain  of  their  ignorance,  and  so  is  no  better  than  a  thief  or  a  robber. 

2.  A  Roman  nobleman  comes  to  a  gentleman  to  buy  his  house, 
who  tells  him,  "  There  is  another  going  to  be  built  near  it,  which 
will  darken  the  windows,"  and  on  that  account  makes  a  deduction  in 


PAKT   I.    §   2,]  oniGINAL  SIX.  "  193 

the  price.  Some  years  after,  the  gentleman  buys  it  of  him  again. 
Afterward  he  sues  the  nobleman  for  seUing  it  without  telling  him 
first,  that  houses  were  built  near,  which  darkened  the  windows. 
The  nobleman  pleads,  "  I  thought  he  knew  it."  The  judge  asks, 
Did  you  tell  him  or  not  ?  And  on  his  owning,  he  did  not,  determines, 
*'  This  is  contrary  to  the  law,  JVc  quid  dolo  malo  fiat,'"'  (let  nothing 
be  done  fraudulently,)  and  sentences  him  immediately  to  pay  back 
part  of  the  price. 

Now,  how  many  of  our  tradesmen  come  up  to  the  Heathen 
standard  of  honesty  1  Who  is  clear  of  Dolus  malus  ?  Such  fraud 
as  the  Roman  judge  would  immediately  have  condemned  ?  V^  hich 
of  our  countrymen  would  not  have  sold  his  corn  or  other  wares  at 
the  highest  price  he  could  ?  Who  would  have  sunk  his  own  market, 
by  telling  his  customers  there  would  be  plenty  the  next  day  1  Per- 
haps scarcely  one  in  twenty.  That  one  the  Heathen  would  have 
allowed  to  be  an  honest  man.  And  every  one  of  the  rest,  accord- 
ing to  his  sentence,  is  "no  better  than  a  thief  or  a  robber." 

I  must  acknowledge,  I  once  believed  the  body  of  English  mer- 
chants to  be  men  of  the  strictest  honesty  and  honour.  But  I  have- 
lately  had  more  experience.  Whoever  wrongs  the  vi^idow  and 
iatherless,  knows  not  what  honour  or  honesty  means.^  And  how 
very  few  are  there  that  will  scruple  this  !  I  could  relate  )nany  fla- 
grant instances.  But  let  one  suffice.  A  merchant  dies  in  the  full 
course  of  a  very  extensive  business.  Another  agrees  with  his 
widow,  that  provided  she  will  recommend  him  to  her  late  husband's 
correspondents,  he  will  allow  her  yearly  such  a  proportion  of  the 
profits  of  the  trade.  She  does  so,  and  articles  are  drawn,  which  she 
lodges  with  an  eminent  man.  This  eminent  man  positively  refuses 
to  give  them  back  to  her ;  but  gives  them  to  the  other  merchant, 
and  so  leaves  her  entirely  at  his  mercy.  The  consequence  is,  the 
other  says,  there  is  no  profit  at  all.  So  he  does  not  give  her  a  groat. 
Now  where  is  the  honesty  or  honour,  either  of  him  who  made  the 
agreement,  or  of  him  who  gave  back  the  articles  to  him  1 

That  there  is  honour,  nay,  and  honesty  to  be  found  in  another 
body  of  men,  among  the  gentlemen  of  the  Laxc,  I  firmly  believe, 
Aphether  Jlltorneys,  Solicitors,  or  Counsellors.  But  are  they  not 
thinly  spread  1  Do  the  generality  of  Attorneys,  and  Solicitors  in 
Chancery,  love  their  neighbour  as  themselves  1  And  do  to  others, 
what  (if  the  circumstance  were  changed)  they  would  have  others 
do  to  them  ?  Do  the  generality  of  Counsellors  walk  by  this  rule  1 
And  by  the  rules  of  justice,  mercy,  and  truth  ?  Do  they  use  their 
utmost  endeavours,  do  they  take  all  the  care  which  the  nature  of  the 
thing  Avill  allow,  to  be  assured  that  a  cause  is  just  and  good  before 
they  undertake  to  defend  it  1  Do  they  never  knowingly  defend  a 
bad  cause,  and  so  make  themselves  accomplices  in  wrong  and  op- 
pression 1  Do  they  never  deliver  the  poor  into  the  hand  of  his  op- 
pressor, and  see  that  such  as  are  in  necessity  have  not  right  1  Are 
they  not  often  the  means  of  withholding  bread  from  the  hungry, 
and  raiment  from  the  naked  1  Even  when  it  is  their  own,  when  they 
Vol.  9.— S 


194  THE    DOCXniKE    OF  [pART  I.    §  2. 

have  a  clear  right  thereto,  by  the  law  both  of  God  and  man  ?  Is 
not  this  effectually  done  in  many  cases,  by  protracting  the  suit  from 
year  to  year  1  I  have  known  a  friendly  bill  preferred  in  Chancery, 
by  the  consent  of  all  parties  ;  the  manager  assuring  them,  a  decree 
would  be  procured  in  two  or  three  months.  But  although  several 
years  are  now  elapsed,  they  can  see  no  land  yet.  Nor  do  I  know, 
that  we  are  a  jot  nearer  the  conclusion  than  we  were  the  first  day* 
Now  where  is  the  honesty  of  this  1  Is  it  not  picking  of  pockets, 
and  no  better  1  A  lawyer  who  does  not  finish  his  client's  suit,  as 
soon  as  it  can  be  done,  I  cannot  allow  to  have  more  honesty 
(though  he  has  more  prudence)  than  if  he  robbed  him  on  the  high- 
way. 

"  But  whether  lawyers  are,  or  not,  sure  the  Nobility  and  Gentry 
are  all  men  of  reason  and  religion."  If  you  think  they  are  all  men 
of  religion,  you  think  very  differently  from  your  Master,  who  made 
no  exception  of  time  or  nation,  when  he  uttered  that  weighty  sen- 
tence, "  How  difficultly  shall  they  that  have  riches  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  !"  And  when  some  who  seem  to  be  of  your 
judgment  were  greatly  astonished  at  his  saying,  instead  of  retracting 
or  softening  it,  he  adds,  "  Verily,  I  say  unto  you,  it  is  easier  for  a 
camel  to  go  through  the  eye  of  a  needle,  than  for  a  rich  man  to 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God."  You  think  differently  from  St. 
Paul,  who  declares,  in  those  remarkable  words,  verified  in  all  ages, 
•'  Not  many  rich  men,  not  many  noble  are  called :"  and  obey  the 
heavenly  calling.  So  many  snares  surround  them,  that  it  is  the 
greatest  of  all  miracles,  if  any  of  them  have  any  religion  at  all. 
And  if  you  think  they  are  all  men  of  sound  reason,  you  do  not 
judge  by  fact  and  experience.  Much  money  does  not  imply  much 
sense  ;  neither  does  a  good  estate  infer  a  good  understanding.  As 
a  gay  coat  may  cover  a  bad  heart,  so  a  fair  peruke  may  adorn  a  weak 
head.  Nay,  a  critical  judge  of  human  nature,  avers  that  this  i^ 
generally  the  case.     He  lays  it  down  as  a  rule 

Sensiis  communis  in  ilia 
Fortuna  varus. 

'  Common  sense  is  rarely  found  in  men  of  fortune.'  '  A  rich  man,' 
says  he,  '  has  liberty  to  be  a  fool.  His  fortune  will  bear  him  out." 
StuUitiam  patiimtur  opes  :  But  Tibi  parvula  res  est.  '  You  have  little 
money,  and  therefore  should  have  common  sense.' 

I  would  not  willingly  say  any  thing  concerning  those  Avhom  the 
providence  of  God  has  allotted  for  guides  to  others.  There  arc 
many  thousands  of  these  in  the  Established  Church  :  many,  among 
dissenters  of  all  denominations.  We  may  add,  some  thousands  ol 
Romish  priests,  scattered  through  England,  and  swarming  in  Ireland. 
Of  these  therefore  1  would  only  ask,  '  Are  they  all  moved  by  the 
Holy  Ghost,  to  take  upon  them  that  office  and  ministry?  If  not, 
they  do  not  "  enter  by  the  door  into  the  sheep-fold  ;"  they  are  not 
sent  of  God.  Is  their  eye  single  ?  Is  it  their  sole  intention  in  all 
their   ministrations,  to  glorify  God  and  save  souls'?    Othei^wise, 


1>ART   1.   §  2.]  OKIGINAL   SIX.  190 

"'the  light  which  is  in  them  is  darkness."  And  it' it  be,  "how 
great  is  that  darkness!"  Is  their  "heart  right  with  God?"  Arc 
their  "  aifections  set  on  things  above,  not  on  things  of  the  earth  V' 
Else  how  will  they  themselves  go  one  step  in  the  way,  wherein  they 
are  to  guide  others  1  Once  more,  "  Are  they  holy  in  all  manner  ol 
conversation,  as  he-  who  hath  called  them  is  holyl"  !f  not,  with 
what  face  can  they  say  to  the  flock,  "  Be  ye  followers  of  me,  as  I 
am  of  Christ  V 

1 2.  We  have  now  taken  a  cursory  view  of  the  present  state  oi 
mankind  in  all  parts  of  the  habitable  world,  and  seen  in  a  general 
way  what  is  their  real  condition,  both  with  regard  to  knov/ledge  and 
virtue.  But  because  this  is  not  so  pleasing  a  picture  as  human  pride 
is  accustomed  to  draw :  and  because  those  who  are  prepossessed 
with  high  notions  of  their  own  beauty,  will  not  easily  believe,  that 
it  is  taken  from  the  life  ;  I  shall  enrieavour  to  place  it  in  another 
riew,  that  it  may  be  certainly  known  whether  it  resembles  the  ori- 
ginal. I  shall  desire  every  one  who  is  willing  to  know  mankind, 
to  begin  his  inquiry  at  home.  First,  let  him  survey  himself;  and 
then  go  on  step  by  step  among  his  neighbours. 

I  ask  then,  first,  Are  you  thoroughly  pleased  with  yourself?  Sa} 
you,  who  is  not  1  Nay,  I  say,  who  is  1  Do  you  never  think  too  well  oi 
yourself?  Think  yourself  wiser,  better,  and  stronger  than  you  ap- 
pear to  be  upon  the  proof?  Is  not  this  pride  1  And  do  you  approve 
of  pride  ?  Were  you  never  angry  without  a  cause  1  Or  farther  than 
that  cause  required  1  Are  you  not  apt  to  be  so  ?  Do  you  approve 
of  this?  Do  not  you  frequently  resolve  against  it  ?  And  do  not  you 
break  those  resolutions  again  and  again  ?  Can  you  help  breaking 
them  ?  If  so,  why  do  you  not  ?  Are  not  you  prone  to  unreasonable 
desires,  either  of  pleasure,  praise,  or  money  ?  Do  not  you  catch 
yourself  desiring  things  not  worth  a  desire  :  and  other  things  more 
than  they  deserve  1  Are  all  your  desires  proportioned  to  the  real,  in- 
trinsic value  of  things  ?  Do  not  you  know  and  feel  the  contrary  ? 
Are  not  j^ou  continually  liable  to  "foolish  and  hurtful  desires?'- 
And  do  you  not  frequently  relapse  into  them,  knowing  them  to  be 
such ;  knowing  that  they  have  before  "  pierced  yoti  through  with 
many  sorrows  ?"  Have  you  not  often  resolved  against  these  desires  ? 
And  as  often  broke  your  resolutions  ?  Can  you  help  breaking  them? 
Do  so  :  help  it  if  you  can  :  and  if  not,  own  your  helplessness. 

Are  you  thoi'oughly  pleased  with  your  own  life  ?  JVihUne  vides 
quod  nolis  ?  Do  you  observe  nothing  there  which  you  dislike  ?  1 
presume  you  are  not  loo  severe  a  judge  here.  Nevertheless  1  ask, 
Are  you  quite  satisfied,  from  day  to  day,  with  all  you  say  or  do  ?  Do 
you  say  nothing,  which  you  afterwards  wish  you  had  not  said  ?  Do 
nothing,  which  you  wish  you  had  not  done  ?  Do  you  never  speak 
anything  contrary  to  truth  or  love  ?  Is  that  right  ?  Let  your  own 
conscience  determine.  Do  you  never  do  any  thing  contrary  to  jus- 
tice or  mercy  ?  Is  that  well  done?  You  know  it  is  not.  Why  then 
do  you  not  amend  ?  Moves,  sed  nil  promoves.  You  resolve  and  re 
solve,  and  do  just  as  you  did  before. 


11J(J  THE  doctuim;  or  [part  ;.  §  y. 

Your  wij'e  liowever  is  wiser  and  better  than  you.  Nay,  perhap.i 
you  do  not  think  so.     Possibly  you  said  once, 

'  Thou  bast  no  faults,  or  I  no  faults  can  spy  ; 
Tbou  art  all  beauty,  or  all  blindness  I.' 

But  you  do  not  say  so  now  :  she  is  not  without  faults  :  and  you 
can  see  them  plain  enough.  You  see  more  faults  than  you  desire, 
both  in  her  temper  and  behaviour.  And  yet  you  cannot  mend 
them  :  and  she  either  cannot  or  will  not.  And  she  says  the  very 
same  of  you.  Do  your  parents  or  her's  live  with  you  ?  And  do  not 
they  too  exercise  your  patience  1  Is  there  nothing  in  their  temper  or 
behaviour  that  gives  you  pain  ?  Nothing  which  you  wish  to  have 
altered  ?  Are  you  a  parent  yourself  ?  Parents  in  general  are  not 
apt  to  think  meanly  of  their  own  dear  offspring.  And  probably  at 
sometimes  you  admire  your's  more  than  enough :  you  think  there 
are  none  such.  But  do  you  think  so,  upon  cool  reflection  ]  Is  the 
behaviour  of  all  your  children,  of  most,  of  any  of  them,  just  such  as 
you  would  desire  1  Toward  yourself,  toward  each  other,  and  toward 
all  men  1  Are  their  tempers  just  such  as  you  would  wish,  loving, 
modest,  mild,  and  teachable  ?  Do  you  observe  no  self-will,  no  pas- 
sion, no  stubbornness,  no  ill-nature,  or  surliness  among  them  1  Did 
you  not  observe  more  or  less  of  these  in  every  one  of  them,  before 
they  were  two  years  old  1  And  have  not  those  seeds  ever  since 
grown  up  with  them,  till  they  have  brought  forth  a  plentiful  harvest  ? 

Your  servants  or  prentices  are  probably  older  than  your  children. 
And  are  they  wiser  and  better  1  Of  all  those  who  have  succeeded 
each  other  for  twenty  years,  how  many  of  them  did  their  work 
"  unto  the  Lord,  not  as  pleasing  man  but  God  "?"  How  many  did 
the  same  work,  and  in  as  exact  a  manner,  behind  your  back  as  before 
your  face  ?  They  that  did  not  were  knaves  ;  they  had  no  religion  ; 
they  had  no  morality.  Which  of  them  studied  your  interest  in  all 
things,  just  as  if  it  had  been  his  own  ?  I  am  afraid,  as  long  as  you 
have  lived  in  the  world,  you  have  seen  few  of  these  black  swans  yet. 

Have  you  had  better  success  with  the  journeymen  and  labourers, 
whom  you  occasionally  employ  ]  Will  they  do  the  same  work  if  you 
are  at  a  distance,  which  they  do  v/hile  you  are  standing  by  ?  Can 
you  depend  upon  their  using  you,  as  they  would  you  should  use 
them  ?  And  will  they  do  this,  not  so  much  for  gain,  as  for  con- 
science' sake  1  Can  you  trust  them  as  to  the  price  of  their  labour  ? 
Will  they  never  charge  more  than  it  is  fairly  worth  'I  If  you  have 
found  a  set  of  such  workmen,  pray  do  not  conceal  so  valuable  a 
treasure ;  but  immediately  advertise  the  men,  and  their  places  of 
abode,  for  the  common  benefit  of  your  countrymen. 

Happy  you  who  have  such  as  these  about  your  house  !  And  are 
your  neighbours  as  honest  and  loving  as  they  1  They  who  live  either 
in  the  same,  or  in  the  next  house  :  do  these  love  you  as  themselves  ? 
And  do  to  you  in  every  point,  as  they  would  have  you  do  to  them  ? 
Are  they  guilty  of  no  untrue  or  unkind  sayings,  no  unfriendly  actions 
towards  you  ?     And  are  they  (as  far  as  you  see  or  know)  in  all 


PAUT  I.  §  2.]  ORIGINAL   SIN.  191 

other  respects,  reasonable  and  religious  men  ?  How  many  of  yoiii^ 
neighbours  answer  this  character  ?  Would  it  require  a  large  house 
to  contain  them  1 

But  you  have  intercourse  not  with  the  next  neighbours  only,  but 
with  several  tradesmen.  And  all  very  honest :  are  they  not  ?  You 
may  easily  make  a  trial.  Send  a  child  or  a  countryman  to  one  of 
their  shops.  If  the  shopkeeper  is  an  honest  man,  he  will  take  no 
advantage  of  the  buyer's  ignorance.  If  he  does,  he  is  no  honester 
than  a  thief  And  how  many  tradesmen  do  you  know  who  would 
scruple  it  1 

Go  a  little  farther.  Send  to  the  market  for  what  you  want. 
'  What  is  the  lowest  price  of  this  V  '  Five  shillings,  Sir.'  '  Can  you 
take  no  less  V  '  No,  upon  my  word.  It  is  worth  it  every  penny.' 
An  hour  after  he  sells  it  for  a  shilling  less.  And  it  is  really  worth  no 
more.  Yet  is  not  this  the  course  (a  few  persons  excepted)  in  every 
market  throughout  the  kingdom  ?  Is  it  not  generally,  though  not 
always,  cheat  that  cheat  can  1  Sell  as  dear  as  you  can,  and  buy  as 
cheap  1  And  what  are  they  who  steer  by  this  rule  better  than  a  com- 
pany  of  J^ew gate-birds  ?  Shake  them  all  together ;  for  there  is  not 
a  grain  of  honesty  among  them. 

But  are  not  your  own  tenants  at  least,  or  your  landlord,  honest 
men  ?  Y'^ou  are  persuaded  they  are.  Very  good  :  remember  then 
an  honest  man's  word  is  as  good  as  his  bond.  You  are  preparing  a 
receipt  or  writing  for  a  sum  of  money,  which  you  are  going  to  pay 
or  lend  to  this  honest  man.  Writing  !  What  need  of  that  1  You 
do  not  fear  he  should  die  soon.  You  did  not  once  think  of  it.  But 
you  do  not  care  to  trust  him  without  it ;  that  is,  you  are  not  sure 
but  he  is  a  mere  knave.  What,  your  landlord  :  Who  is  a  justice 
of  peace  !  It  may  be  a  judge  ;  nay,  a  member  of  parliament :  pos- 
sibly a  peer  of  the  realm  !  And  cannot  you  trust  this  honourable  (if 
not  right  honourable)  man,  without  a  paltry  receipt  ?  I  do  not  ask 
whether  he  is  a  whoremonger,  an  adulterer,  a  blasphemer,  a  proud, 
a  passionate,  a  revengeful  man.  This  it  may  be  his  nearest  friends 
will  allow.     But  do  you  suspect  his  honesty  too  1 

13.  Such  is  the  state  of  the  Protestant  Christians  in  England 
Such  their  virtue  from  the  least  to  the  greatest,  if  you  take  an  im- 
partial survey  of  your  parents,  children,  servants,  labourers,  neigh- 
bours, of  tradesmen,  gentry,  nobility.  What  then  can  we  expect 
from  Papists  1  What  from  Jews,  Mahometans,  Heathens  1 

And  it  may  be  remarked,  that  this  is  the  plain,  glaring,  apparent 
condition  of  human  kind.  It  strikes  the  eye  of  the  most  careless, 
inaccurate  observer,  who  does  not  trouble  himself  with  any  more 
than  their  outside.  Now  it  is  certain  the  generality  of  men  do  not 
wear  their  worst  side  outward.  Rather,  they  study  to  appear  bet- 
ter than  they  are,  and  to  conceal  what  they  can  of  their  fauhs>- 
What  a  figure  then  would  they  make,  were  we  able  to  touch  them 
with  Ithuriel's  spear?  What  a  prospect  would  there  be,  could  we- 
anticipate  the  transactions  of  the  great  dav  ?  Could  we  "bring  to - 

S  2 


198  THE    DOCTRINE  OF  [PART  I.  §  2 

light  the  hidden  things  of  darkness,  and  make  manifest  the  thoughts 
and  intents  of  the  heart  ^" 

This  is  the  plain,  naked  fact,  without  any  extenuation  on  the  one 
hand,  or  exaggeration  on  the  other.  The  present  state  of  the  moral 
world  is  as  conspicuous  as  that  of  the  natural.  Ovid  said  no  more 
concerning  both  near  two  thousand  )'ears  since,  than  is  evidently 
true  at  this  day.  Of  the  natural  world  he  says,  (whether  this  took 
place  at  the  fall  of  man,  or  about  the  time  of  the  Deluge,) 

Jupiter  antiqui  conh'axit  tempora  veris, 

Ferq ;  hicmes,  astusq  ;  et  inaquales  autumnos, 

Et  breve  ver  spatiis  exegit  quatuor  annum. 
The  God  of  uature,  and  her  sovereign  king, 
Shorten'd  the  primitive,  perennial  spring : 
The  spring  gave  place,  no  sooner  come  than  past, 
To  summer's  heat  and  winter's  chilling  blast ; 
And  Autumn  sick,  irregular,  and  uneven  : 
While  the  sad  year  through  different  seasons  driven 
Obev'd  the  stern  decree  of  angry  heaven. 

And  a  man  may  as  modestly  deny,  that  spring  and  summer,  au- 
tumn and  winter,  succeed  each  other,  as  deny  one  article  of  the  en- 
.^uing  account  of  the  m.oral  world. 

Irrupit  vencE  pejoris  in  CEVum 
Omne  nefas  :  fugere  pudor,  verumq  ;  fidesq  ; 
In  quorum  subiere  locum  fraudesq  ;  doliq  ; 
Insidiceq  ;  et  vis,  et  amor  sceleratus  habendi ; 
A  flood  of  general  wickedness  broke  in 
At  once,  and  made  the  iron  age  begin  : 
Virtue  and  truth  forsook  the  faithless  race, 
And  fraud  and  wrong  succeeded  in  their  place. 
Deceit  and  violence,  the  dire  thirst  of  gold, 
Lust  to  possess,  and  rage  to  have  and  hold. 

What  country  is  there  now  upon  earth,  in  Europe,  Asia,  Africa,  or 
America,  be  the  inhabitants  Pagans,  Turks,  or  Christians,  concern- 
ing which  we  may  not  say, 

Vivitur  exraplo  ;  nonkospes  ah  hospite  tutus  ■ 

Filius  ante  diem  patrios  inquirit  in  annos, 

Victajacet  pietas  ;   el  virgo  eade  madentes 

Ultima  cceltstum  terras  astrma  reliquit. 
They  live  by  rapine.     The  unwary  guest 
Is  poison'd  at  th'  inhospitable  feast. 
The  son,  impatient  for  his  father's  deatk, 
Numbers  his  years,  and  longs  to  stop  his  breath  ; 
Extinguish'd  all  regard  for  God  and  man  : 
And  justice,  last  of  the  celestial  train, 
Spurns  the  earth  drench'd  in  blood,  and  flies  to  heaven  again. 

14.  Universal  misery  is  at  once  a  consequence  and  a  proof  of  this^ 
universal  (Corruption.  Men  are  unhappy,  (how  very  few  are  the  ex- 
ceptions !)  because  they  are  unholy.  Culpwn  poena  premit  comes. 
Pain  accompanies  and  follows  sin.  Why  is  the  earth  so  full  of  com- 
plicated distress  1  Because  it  is  full  of  complicated  wickedness. 
Why  are  not  you  happy  ?  Other  circumstances  may  concur,  but 
the  main  reason  is,  because  you  are  not  holy.  It  is  impossible  in 
ihe  nature  of  things,  that  wickedness  can  consist  with  happiness. 
A  Roman  Heathen  tells  the  English  Heathens,  J^emo  mains  felix : 
no  vicious  man  is  happy.     And  if  you  are  not  guilty  of  any  gross  or 


PAKT  I,  §  2.]  ORIGINAL   SIN.  IdP 

outward  vice,  yet  you  have  vicious  tempers  :  and  as  long  as  these 
have  power  in  your  heart,  true  peace  has  no  place.  You  are  proud ; 
you  think  too  highly  of  yourself.  You  are  passionate  ;  often  angry 
without  reason.  You  are  self-willed  ;  you  would  have  your  own 
will,  your  own  way  in  every  thing  ;  that  is  plainly,  you  would  rule 
over  God  and  man  ;  you  would  be  the  governor  of  the  world.  You 
are  daily  liable  to  unreasonable  desires  :  some  things  you  desire  that 
are  no  way  desirable  :  others  which  ought  to  be  avoided,  yea,  ab- 
horred, at  least  as  they  are  now  circumstanced.  And  can  a  proud 
or  a  passionate  man  be  happy  ]  Oh  no  :  experience  shows  it  im- 
possible. Can  a  man  be  happy,  who  is  full  of  self-will '?  Not  unless 
he  can  dethrone  the  Most  High.  Can  a  man  of  unreasonable  de- 
sires be  happy  1  Nay,  they  "  pierce  him  through  with  many 
sorrows." 

I  have  not  touched  upon  envy,  malice,  revenge,  covetousness,  and 
other  gross  vices.  Concerning  these  it  is  universally  agreed,  by  all 
thinking  men.  Christian  or  Heathen,  that  a  man  can  no  more  be 
happy,  while  they  lodge  in  his  bosom,  than  if  a  vulture  were  gnawing 
his  liver.  It  is  supposed  indeed,  that  a  very  small  part  of  mankind, 
only  the  vilest  of  men,  are  liable  to  these.  I  know  not  that :  but 
certainly  this  is  not  the  case  with  regard  to  pride,  anger,  self-will, 
foolish  desires.  Those  who  are  not  accounted  bad  men,  are  by  no 
means  free  from  these.  And  this  alone  (were  they  liable  to  no  other 
pain)  would  prevent  the  generality  of  men,  rich  and  poor,  learned 
and  unlearned,  from  ever  knowing  what  happiness  means. 

15.  You  think,  however,  you  could  bear  yourself  pretty  well ;  but 
you  have  such  a  husband,  or  wife,  such  parents  and  children  as  are 
intolerable  !  One  has  such  a  tongue,  the  other  so  perverse  a  tem- 
per !  The  language  of  these,  the  carriage  of  those,  is  so  provoking! 
Otherwise  you  should  be  happy  enough.  True,  if  both  you  and 
they  were  wise  and  virtuous.  Meanwhile,  neither  the  vices  of  your 
family,  nor  your  own  will  suffer  you  to  rest. 

Look  out  of  your  own  doors :  "  Is  there  any  evil  in  the  city, 
and  sin  hath  not  done  it  ?"  Is  there  any  misfortune  or  misery  to 
be  named,  whereof  it  is  not  either  the  direct  or  remote  occa- 
sion 1  Why  is  it  that  the  friend  or  relation  for  whom  you  are  so 
tenderly  concerned,  is  involved  in  so  many  troubles  1  Have  not  you 
done  your  part  toward  making  them  happy  1  Yes,  but  they  will  not 
do  their  own  :  one  has  no  management,  no  frugality,  or  no  industry. 
Another  is  too  fond  of  pleasure.  If  he  is  not  what  is  called  scan- 
dalously vicious,  he  loves  wine,  women,  or  gaming.  And  to  what 
does  all  this  amount  1  He  might  be  happy  ;  but  sin  will  not  suffer  it. 

Perhaps  you  will  say,  nay,  he  is  not  in  fault,  he  is  both  frugal  and 
diligent.  But  he  has  fallen  into  the  hands  of  those,  who  have  im- 
posed upon  his  good  nature.  Very  well ;  but  still  sin  is  the  cause  ol 
liis  misfortunes.     Only  it  is  another's,  not  his  own. 

If  you  inquire  into  the  troubles  under  which  your  neighbour,  your 
acquaintance,  or  one  you  casually  talk  with,  labours,  still  you  will 
find  the  far  greater  part  of  them  arise,  from  some  fault  either  of  the 


wo  THE   DOCTRINE   Of  [PART  II.  §  J 

sufferer  or  of  others.     So  that  still  sin  is  at  the  root  of  trouble,  and 
it  is  unholiness  which  causes  unhappiness. 

And  this  holds  as  well  with  regard  to  families,  as  with  regard  to 
individuals.  Many  families  are  miserable  through  want.  They 
have  not  the  conveniences,  if  the  necessaries  of  life.  Why  have 
fhey  not  1  Because  they  will  not  work  :  were  they  diligent,  they 
would  want  nothing.  Or  if  not  idle,  they  are  wasteful :  they  squan- 
der away  in  a  short  time,  what  might  have  served  for  many  years. 
Others  indeed  are  diligent  and  frugal  too  ;  but  a  treacherous  friend, 
or  a  malicious  enemy  has  ruined  them  :  or  they  groan  under  the 
liand  of  the  oppressor  :  or  the  extortioner  has  entered  into  their  la- 
bours. You  see  then,  in  all  these  cases,  want  (though  in  various 
ways)  is  the  effect  of  sin.  But  is  there  no  rich  man  near]  None 
that  could  relieve  these  innocent  sufferers,  without  impairing  his  own 
fortune  1  Yes,  but  he  thinks  of  nothing  less.  They  may  rot  and 
perish  for  him.     See,  more  sin  is  implied  in  their  suffering. 

But  is  not  the  family  of  that  rich  man  himself  happy?  No  ;  far 
from  it :  perhaps  farther  than  his  poor  neighbours.  For  they  are 
not  content:  their  "  eye  is  not  satisfied  with  seeing,  nor  their  ear 
with  hearing."  Endeavouring  to  fill  their  souls  with  the  pleasures 
of  sense  and  imagination,  they  are  only  pouring  water  into  a  sieve. 
Is  not  this  the  case  with  the  wealthiest  families  yovi  know  1  But  it 
is  not  the  whole  case  with  some  of  them.  There  is  a  debauched,  a 
jealous,  or  an  ill-natured  husband  :  a  gaming,  passionate,  or  impe- 
rious wife  ;  an  undutiful  son,  or  an  imprudent  daughter,  who  ba- 
nishes happiness  from  the  house.  And  what  is  all  this,  but  sin  in 
various  shapes,  with  its  sure  attendant,  misery "? 

In  a  town,  a  corporation,  a  city,  a  kingdom,  is  it  not  the  samethina; 
still  1  From  whence  comes  the  complication  of  all  the  miseries  inci" 
dent  to  human  nature,  war?  "  Is  it  not  from  the  tempers  which  war 
in  the  soul  1"  When  nation  rises  up  against  nation,  and  kingdom 
against  kingdom,  does  it  not  necessarily  imply  pride,  ambition,  covet= 
ing  what  is  another's,  or  envy,  or  malice,  or  revenge,  on  one  side,  it 
not  on  both?  Still  then  sin  is  the  baleful  source  of  affliction.  And 
consequently  the  flood  of  miseries,  which  covers  the  face  of  the  earth, 
which  overwhelms,  not  only  single  persons,  but  whole  families,  towns. 
)>ities,  kingdoms,  is  a  demonstrative  proof  of  the  overflowing  of  uii-. 
ajodliness,  in  every  nation  under  heaven. 


PART  II. 

The  Scriptural  Method  of  accounting  for  this,  defended. 

I.  1.  The  fact  then  being  undeniable,  I  would  ask,  How  it  is  to 
be  accounted  for?  Will  you  resolve  it  into  the  prevalence  of  custom^ 
and  say,  *'  Men  are  guided  more  by  example  than  reason  ?"  It  is  true. 
They  run  after  one  another,  like  a  flock  of  sheep,  (as  Seneca  re. 


PART  II.  §    1.]  ORIGINAL   SIN.  20 1 

marked  long  ago)  J^^^oa  qua  eundum  est,  sed  qua  itur  :  J^ot  where  they 
ought  to  go,  but  where  others  go.  But  I  gain  no  ground  by  this  :  I 
am  equally  at  a  loss  to  account  for  this  custom.  How  is  it,  (seeing 
men  are  reasonable  creatures,  and  nothing  is  so  agreeable  to  reason 
as  virtue,)  that  the  custom  of  all  ages  and  nations,  is  not  on  the  side 
of  virtue  rather  than  vice  1  If  you  say.  This  is  owning  to  bad  education, 
which  propagates  ill  customs ;  I  own,  education  has  an  amazing  force, 
far  beyond  what  is  commonly  imagined.  I  own  too,  that  as  bad  edu- 
cation is  found  among  Christians,  as  ever  obtained  among  the  Hea- 
thens. But  1  am  no  nearer  still :  I  am  not  advanced  a  hair's  breadth 
toward  the  conclusion.  For  how  am  I  to  account  for  the  almost  uni- 
versal prevalence  of  this  bad  education?  I  want  to  know  when  this 
prevailed  first,  and  how  it  came  to  prevail  1  How  came  wise  and 
good  men,  (for  such  they  must  have  been  before  bad  education  com- 
menced,) not  to  train  up  their  children  in  wisdom  and  goodness  1  In 
the  way  wherein  they  had  been  brought  up  themselves  ?  They  had 
then  no  ill  precedent  before  them  :  How  came  they  to  make  such  a 
precedent  1  And  how  came  all  the  wisdom  of  after  ages,  never  to 
correct  that  precedent  1  You  must  suppose  it  to  have  been  of  ancient 
date.  Profane  history  gives  us  a  large  account  of  universal  wicked- 
ness, that  is,  universal  bad  education,  for  above  two  thousand  years 
last  past.  Sacred  history  adds  the  account  of  above  two  thousand 
more  :  in  the  very  beginning  of  which,  (more  than  four  thousand 
years  ago,)  "  all  flesh  had  corrupted  their  ways  before  the  Lord  !" 
Or,  to  speak  agreeably  to  this  hypothesis,  were  very  corruptly  edu- 
cated. Now  how  is  this  to  be  accounted  for,  that  in  so  long  a  tract  of 
timfe,  no  one  nation  under  the  sun,  has  been  able,  by  wholesome 
laws  or  by  any  other  method,  to  remove  this  grievous  evil  ?  So  that 
their  children  being  well  educated,  the  scale  might  at  length, — turn  on 
the  side  of  reason  and  virtue  ? 

These  are  questions  which  I  conceive  will  not  easily  be  answered, 
to  the  satisfaction  of  any  impartial  inquirer.  But  to  bring  the  matter 
to  a  short  issue.  The  first  parents  who  educated  their  children  in 
vice  and  folly,  either  were  wise  and  virtuous  themselves,  or  were  not. 
If  they  were  not,  their  vice  did  not  proceed  from  education.  So 
the  supposition  falls  to  the  ground  :  wickedness  was  antecedent  to 
bad  education.  If  they  were  wise  and  virtuous,  it  cannot  be  supposed, 
but  they  would  teach  their  children  to  tread  in  the  same  steps.  In 
nowise  therefore  can  we  account  for  the  present  state  of  mankind 
from  example  or  education. 

2.  Let  us  then  have  recourse  to  the  Oracles  of  God.  How  dp 
they  teach  us  to  account  for  this  fact.  That  "  all  flesh  corrupted  their 
way  before  God,"  even  in  the  antediluvian  world  *?  That  mankind 
were  little,  if  at  all,  less  corrupt,  from  the  flood  to  the  giving  of  the 
law  by  Moses :  that  from  that  time  till  Christ  came,  even  God's 
chosen  people  were  a  "  faithless  and  stubborn  generation,"  little 
better,  though  certainly  not  worse  than  the  Heathens  who  knew  not 
God:  that  when  Christ  came,  both  "Jews  and  Gentiles  were  all 
under  sin  ;  all  the  world  was  guilty  before  God  :"  that  even  aftev 


202  THE    DOCTKINE    OF  f  PART  n^  §  i  . 

(he  gospel  had  been  preached  in  all  nations,  still  the  wise  and  vir- 
tuous were  "  a  little  flock  :"  bearing  so  small  a  portion  to  the  bulkoi 
mankind,  that  it  might  yet  be  said,  "  The  whole  world  lieth  in  wick- 
edness :"  That  from  that  time  "  the  mystery  of  iniquity"  wrought 
even  in  the  church,  till  the  Christians  were  little  better  than  the  Hea- 
thens :  And,  lastly.  That  at  this  day  "  the  whole  world,"  whether 
Pagan,  Mahometan,  or  nominally  Christian,  (little  indeed  is  the  flock 
which  is  to  be  excepted  !)  again  'lieth  in  wickedness  ;"  doth  not 
"  know  the  only  true  God  ;"  doth  not  love,  doth  not  worship  him  as 
God ;  hath  not  "  the  mind  which  was  in  Christ,"  neither  "  walketh 
as  he  walked  ;"  doth  not  practise  justice,  mercy,  and  truth,  nor  do 
to  others  as  they  would  others  should  do  to  them  :  How,  I  say,  do 
the  Oracles  of  God  teach  us  to  account  for  this  plain  fact  ? 

3.  They  teach  us.  That  "  in  Adam  all  die  :"  That  «  by  the  first 
man  came"  both  natural  and  spiritual  "  death  :"*  That  by  this  "  one 
man  sin  entered  into  the  world,  and  death"  in  consequence  of  sin  : 
and  that  from  him.  "  death  passed  upon  all  men,  in  that  all  have  sin- 
ned." Rom.  V.  12. 

But  you  aver,  fThat  "no  evil  but  temporal  death  came  upon  men 
in  consequence  of  Adam's  sin."  And  this  you  endeavour  to  prove 
by  considering  the  chief  scriptures  Avhich  are  supposed  to  relate 
thereto. 

The  first  you  mention  is  Gen.  ii.  17,  "  But  of  the  tree  of  know- 
ledge of  good  and  evil,  thou  shalt  not  eat  of  it :  For  in  the  day  that 
thou  eatest  thereof  thou  shalt  surely  die." 

On  this  you  observe  :  "  Death  was  to  be  the  consequence  of  his 
disobedience.  And  the  death  here  threatened  can  be  opposed  only 
to  that  life  God  gave  Adam  wlicn  he  created  him.''  (Third  Edition, 
p.  7.)  True  :  but  how  are  you  assured,  that  God,  when  he  created 
him,  did  not  give  him  spiritual  as  well  as  animal  life  1  Now  spiritual 
death  is  opposed  to  spiritual  life.  And  this  is  more  than  the  death  ol 
the  body. 

"  But  this  is  pure  conjecture,  without  a  solid  foundation.  For  no 
other  hfe  is  spoken  of  before."  Yes  there  is.  The  image  of  God  is 
spoken  of  before.  This  is  not  therefore  pure  conjecture  ;  but  is 
grounded  upon  a  solid  foundation,  upon  the  plain  word  of  God.  Al- 
lowing then,  that  "  Adam  could  understand  it  of  no  other  life  than 
that  which  he  had  newly  received  :"  yet  would  he  naturally  under- 
stand it  of  the  life  of  God  in  his  soul,  as  well  as  of  the  life  of  his  body. 

In  this  light  therefore  the  sense  of  the  threatening  will  stand  thus: 
**  Thou  shalt  surely  die  ;"  as  if  he  had  said,  "  I  have  (p.  8 )  formed  thee 
of  the  dust  of  the  ground,  and  breathed  into  thy  nostrils  the  breath  ol 
lives,"  both  of  animal  and  spiritual  life  ;  and  in  both  respects  thou 
art  become  a  living  soul.  "  But  if  thou  eatest  of  the  forbidden  tree, 
thou  shalt  cease  to  be  a  living  soul.  For  I  will  take  from  thee"  the 
lives  I  have  given,  and  thou  shalt  die  spiritually,  temporally,  eternally. 

*  1  Cor.  XV.  22,  compared  with  Gen.  ii.  and  iii. 

t  Dr.  Taylor's  Doctrine  of  Original  Sin,  Part  I.  to  whom  I  address  myself  in  whai 
follows.  What  is  quoted  from  him,  generally  in  his  own  word».  is  enclosed  in  invertC'! 
vommas  "    ". 


I'AllT  II.  §  1.]  OHIGINAt  SIX.  20o 

But  "  here' is  not  one  word  relating  to  Adam's  posterity.  Though 
it  be  true,  if  he  had  died  immediately  upon  his  transgression,  all  his 
posterity  must  have  been  extinct  with  him."  It  is  true  :  yet  "  not 
one  word"  of"  it  is  expressed.  Therefore  other  consequences  of  his 
sin  may  be  equally  implied,  though  they  are  no  more  expressed  than 
this. 

4.  The  second  Scripture  you  cite  is  Geii.  iii.  from  the  7th  to  the 
^4th  verse,  (p.  9,  10.) 

On  this  you  observe,  "  Here  we  have  some  consequences  of  our 
first  parents'  sin  before  God  judged  them :  some  appointed  by  his 
judicial  sentence ;  and  some  which  happened  after  that  sentence 
Avas  pronounced."  (p.  11.) 

"  Immediately  upon  their  transgression,  they  were  seized  with 
shame  and  fear.  Guilt  will  always  be  attended  with  shame.  And 
a  state  of  guilt  is  often  in  Scripture  expressed  by  being  naked. 
(Exod.  xxxii.  25.)  '  Moses  saw  that  the  people  were  naked ;  for 
Aaron  had  made  them  naked  to  their  shame  among  their  enemies.' " 
Certainly,  naked  does  not  mean  guilty  here  ;  but  either  stripped  of 
their  ornaments,  (ch.  xxxiii.  5,  6,)  or  of  their  swords,  or  their  upper 
garments,  (isa.  xlvii.  3.)  '  Thy  nakedness  shall  be  uncovered,  yea, 
thy  shame  shall  be  seen.'  Here  also  nakedness  does  not  mean  guilt; 
but  is  to  be  taken  literally,  as  manifestly  appears  from  the  words  im- 
mediately preceding,  (ver.  2.)  '  Make  bare  the  leg,  uncover  the 
thigh,  pass  over  the  rivers.'  And  (Rev.  xvi.  15,)  '  Blessed  is  he  that 
watcheth  and  keepeth  his  garments,  lest  he  walk  naked  and  they  see 
his  shame.'  The  plain  meaning  is,  lest  he  lose  the  graces  he  has  re- 
ceived, and  so  be  ashamed  before  men  and  angels. 

"  Their  fear  is  described,  (ver.  8.)  '  Adam  and  his  wife  hid  th"em- 
selves  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord  God  among  the  trees  of  the 
garden.'  They  had  no  such  fear  while  they  were  innocent :  but 
now  they  were  afraid  to  stand  before  their  judge."  (p.  13.) 

This  is  all  you  can  discern  in  the  Mosaic  account  as  the  conse- 
quence of  our  fu'st  parent's  sin,  before  God  judged  them.  Mr.  Her- 
vey  discerns  something  more.  I  make  no  apology  for  transcribing 
some  of  his  words.* 

<  Adam  violated  the  precept,  and  as  the  nervous  original  expresses 
it,  died  the  death.  He  before  possessed  a  life  incomparably  more 
excellent  than  that  which  the  beasts  enjoy.  He  possessed  a  divine 
life,  according  to  the  apostle,  in  knowledge,  in  righteousness,  and  true 
lioliness.  This,  which  was  the  distinguishing  glory  of  his  nature,  in 
l]ie  day  that  he  cat  the  forbidden  fruit,  was  extinct. 

*  His  understanding,  oi-iginally  enlightened  with  wisdom,  was 
clouded  with  ignorance.  His  heart,  once  warmed  with  heavenly 
love,  became  alienated  from  God  his  maker.  His  passions  and  ap- 
petites, rational  and  regular  before,  shook  off  the  government  of 

*  Theron  and  Aspasio,  Dialogue  11. 


204  THE   DOCTRINE  OF  [PART  IT.  §   3 . 

order  and  reason.     In  a  word,  the  whole  moral  frame  was  unhinged, 
disjointed,  broken. 

*  The  ignorance  of  fallen  Adam  was  palpable.  Witness  that  ab- 
surd attempt,  to  hide  himself  from  the  eye  of  omniscience,  among  the 
trees  of  the  garden.  His  aversion  to  the  all-gracious  God  was 
equally  plain.  Otherwise  he  would  never  have  fled  from  his  Maker, 
but  rather  have  hasted  on  the  wings  of  desire,  into  the  place  of  the 
divine  manifestation. 

'  A  strange  variety  of  disorderly  passions  were  evidently  predomi- 
nant in  his  breast.  Pride ;  for  he  refuses  to  acknowledge  his  guilt, 
though  he  cannot  but  own  the  fact.  Ingratitude ;  for  he  obliquely 
upbraids  the  Creator  with  his  gift,  as  though  it  had  been  a  snare 
rather  than  a  blessing ;  "The  woman  thou  gavest  me."  The  fe- 
male criminal  acts  the  same  unhumbled  part.  She  neither  takes 
shame  to  herself,  nor  gives  glory  to  God,  nor  puts  up  a  single  peti- 
tion for  pardon. 

'  As  all  these  disasters  ensued,  upon  the  breach  of  the  command- 
ment, they  furnish  us  with  the  best  key  to  open  the  meaning  of  the 
penalty  annexed.  They  prove,  beyond  any  argument.  That  spiritual 
death  and  all  its  consequences  were  comprised  in  the  extent  of  the 
threatening.' 

5.  However,  "  no  other  could  in  justice  be  punishable  for  thai 
transgression,  which  was  their  own  act  and  deed  only."  If  no 
Other  v/as  iusi\y  punishable,  then  no  other  was  punished  for  that  trans- 
gression. But  all  were  punished  for  that  transgression,  namely,  with 
death.     Therefore,  all  men  were  justly  punishable  for  it. 

By  punishment  i  mean  suffering  consequent  upon  sin,  or  pain  in- 
flicted because  of  sin  preceding.  Now  it  is  plain  all  mankind  suffer 
death  ;  and  that  this  suffering  is  consequent  upon  Adam's  sin.  Yea, 
and  that  this  pain  is  inflicted  on  all  men,  because  of  his  sin.  When, 
therefore,  you  say,  "  Death  does  descend  to  us,  in  consequence  of 
his  transgression,"  (p.  20,)  you  allow  the  point  we  contend  for ;  and 
are  very  welcome  to  add,  "  Yet  it  is  not  a  punishment  for  his  sin." 
You  allow  the  thing.     Call  it  by  what  name  you  please. 

But  "punishment  always  connotes  guilt."  (p.  21.)  It  always  con- 
notes sin  and  siffering,  and  here  are  both.  Adam  sinned  :  his  pos- 
terity suffer :  and  that,  in  consequence  of  his  sin. 

But  "  sufferings  are  benefits  to  us."  Doubtless,  but  this  does  not 
hinder  their  being  punishments.  The  pain  J  suffer  as  a  punishment 
for  my  own  sins,  may  be  a  benefit  to  me,  but  it  is  a  punishment  never- 
theless. 

But  "  as  they  two  only  were  guilty  of  the  first  sin,  so  no  other  but 
they  two  only,  could  be  conscious  of  it  as  their  sin."  (p.  24.)  No 
other  could  be  conscious  of  it  as  their  sin,  in  the  same  sense  as  Adam 
and  Eve  were  :  and  yet  others  may  "  charge  it  upon  themselves,"  in 
a  different  sense,  so  as  to  judge  themselves  children  of  ivrath  on  thai 
account. 

To  sum  up  this  point  in  Dr.  Jenning's  words  :  « If  there  be  any 
thing  in  this  argument  that  Adam's  posterity  could  not  be  justly  pun- 


t'X'&T  II.  §  1.]  ORIGINAL  SIN.  205 

ishable  for  his  transgression,  because  it  was  his  personal  act  and  not 
theirs  ;  it  must  pi'ove  universally  that  it  is  unjust  to  punish  the  pos» 
terity  of  any  man  for  his  personal  crimes.  And  yet  most  certain  it 
is,  that  God  has  in  other  cases  actually  punished  men's  sins  on  their 
posterity.  Thus  the  posterity  of  Canaan,  the  son  of  Ham,  is  pun- 
ished with  slavery,  for  his  sin.  (Oen.  ix.  25 — 27.)  Noah  pronounced 
the  curse  under  a  divine  afflatus,  and  God  confirmed  it  by  his  Pro- 
vidence, So  we  do  in  fact  suffer  for  Adam's  sin,  and  that  too  by 
the  sentence  inflicted  on  our  first  parents.  We  suffer  death  in  con- 
sequence of  their  transgression.  Therefore  we  are,  in  some  sense, 
?;uilty  of  their  sin.  I  would  ask.  What  is  guilt,  but  an  obligation  to 
suffer  punishment  for  sin  ?  Now,  since  we  suffer  the  same  penal 
evil,  which  God  threatened  to,  and  inflicted  on  Adam  for  his  sin,  and 
since  it  is  allowed  we  suffer  this  for  Adam's  sin,  and  that  by  the  sen- 
tence of  God,  appointing  all  men  to  die,  because  Adam  sinned  :  is 
not  the  consequence  evident?  Therefore  we  are  all  some  way 
guilty  of  Adam's  sin.'* 

6.  "  The  consequences  appointed  by  the  judicial  sentence  of  God 
are  found  in  that  pronounced  on  the  serpent,  or  the  woman,  or  the 
man.  (p.  15.)  The  serpent  is  cursed,  (ver.  14,  15.)  And  those 
words  in  the  1 5th  verse,  '  I  will  put  enmity  between  thee  and  the 
woman,  and  between  thy  seed  and  her  seed  :  He'  (so  the  Hebrew) 
•'  shall  bruise  thy  head,  and  thou  shalt  bruise  his  heel :'  imply,  that 
God  would  appoint  his  only-begoiten  Son,  to  maintain  a  kingdom  in 
the  world  opposite  to  the  kingdom  of  Satan,  till  he  should  be  born 
of  a  woman,  and  by  his  doctrine,  example,  obedience,  and  death, 
give  the  last  stroke,  by  the  way  of  moral  means,  to  the  power  and 
works  of  the  Devil."  (p.  16.) 

I  do  not  understand  that  expression, "  By  the  way  of  moral  means." 
What  I  understand  from  the  whole  tenor  of  Scripture  is,  that  the 
eternal,  almighty  Son  of  God,  '  who  is  over  all,  God  blessed  for 
ever,'  having  reconciled  us  to  Gt?d  by  his  blood,  creates  us  anew 
by  his  Spirit,  and  reigns  till  he  hath  destroyed  all  the  works  of  the 
Devil. 

"Sentence  is  past  upon  the  woman,  (ver.  16,)  that  she  should 
bring  forth  children  with  more  pai;  and  hazard,  than  otherwise  she 
v/ould  have  done."  (p.  17.)  How?  With  more  pain  and  hazard 
than  otherwise  she  would  have  done  ?  Would  she  otherwise  have 
had  any  pain  at  all]  Or  have  brought  forth  children  with  any  ha- 
zard ?  Hazard  of  what  1  Certainly  not  of  death.  I  cannot  com- 
prehend this. 

"  Lastly,  the  sentence  upon  the  man,  (ver.  17, 18, 19,)  first  affects 
the  earth,  and  then  denounces  death  upon  himself" 

"  After  sentence  pronounced,  God  having  clothed  Adam  and  Eve, 
drove  them  out  of  Paradise."  (p.  18.) 

Here  "observe,  1.  a  curse  is  pronounced  on  the  serpent  and  on 
fhe  ground :  but  no  curse  upon  the  woman  and  the  man,"  (p.  19.) 

♦  Yiridicalion  of  the  Doctrine  of  Original  Sin. 
Vol.  9.— T 


206  THE   DOCTRINE   OF  [pART  H.    §  i. 

But  a  curse  fell  upon  them  in  that  very  moment,  wherein  they  trans- 
gressed the  law  of  God.  For  "  cursed  is  every  one  that  continueth 
not  in  all  things  which  are  contained  in  the  law  to  do  them."  Vainly, 
therefore,  do  you  subjoin,  "  Though  they  are  subjected  to  sorrow, 
labour,  and  death,  these  are  not  inflicted  under  the  notion  of  a 
curse."  Surely  they  are :  as  the  several  branches  of  that  curse, 
which  he  had  already  incurred.  And  which  had  already  not  only 
"  darkened  and  weakened  his  rational  powers,"  but  disordered  his 
whole  soul. 

"  Observe,  2,  here  is  not  one  word  of  any  other  death,  but  the 
dissolution  of  the  body."  Nor  was  it  needful.  He  felt  in  himself 
that  spiritual  death,  which  is  the  p}-elude  of  death  everlasting.  "  But 
the  words,  '  Dust  thou  art,  and  unto  dust  thou  shalt  return,'  restrain 
this  death  to  this  dissolution  alone."  (p.  20.)  "This  dissolution 
alone"  is  expressed  in  those  words.  But  how  does  it  appear,  that 
nothing  more  is  implied  ?  The  direct  contrary  appears  from  your 
own  assertions.  For  if  these  Avords  refer  clearly  to  those,  '  And  the 
Lord  God  formed  man  out  of  the  dust  of  the  ground,  and  breathed 
into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of  lives  :'  and  if  "  the  judicial  act  of  con- 
demnation clearly  implieth  the  depriving  him  of  that  life  which  God 
then  breathed  into  him  :  it  undeniably  follows,  that  this  judicial  act 
implieth  a  deprivation  of  spiritual  life  as  well  as  temporal:  seeing 
God  breathed  into  him  both  one  and  the  other,  in  order  to  his  '  be- 
coming a  living  soul.'  " 

It  remains,  that  the  death  expressed  in  the  original  threatening, 
and  implied  in  the  sentence  pronounced  upon  man,  includes  all  evils 
which  could  befall  his  soul  and  body  :  death  temporal,  spiritual,  and 
eternal. 

7.  You  next  cite  (p.  22,)  1  Cor.  xv.  21,  22,  '  Since  by  man  came 
death,  by  man  came  also  the  resurrection  of  the  dead.  For  as  in 
Adam  all  die,  even  so  in  Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive.'  On  this 
you  observe,  1.  "The  apostle  is  in  this  chapter  proving  and  ex- 
plaining the  resurrection.  It  is  this  fact  or  event,  and  no  other, 
which  he  here  affirms  and  demonstrates."  (p.  23.) 

If  you  mean,  "  The  resurrection  of  the  body  to  that  life  which  it 
enjoyed  in  this  world,  is  the  only  thing  which  the  apostle  speaks  of 
in  this  chapter,"  your  assertion  is  palpably  false.  For  he  speaks 
therein  of  that  glorious  life  botli  of  soul  and  body,  Avhich  is  not,  can- 
not be  enjoyed  in  this  world. 

You  observe,  2.  "  It  is  undeniable,  that  all  mankind  die  in  Adam, 
all  are  mortal,  in  consequence  of  his  sin."  (p.  24.)  3.  "  It  is  equally 
clear,  that  by  Christ  came  the  resurrection  of  the  dead :  that  iu 
Christ  all  who  die  in  Adam,  that  is,  all  mankind  are  made  alive." 
It  is  neither  clear  nor  true,  that  St.  Paul  affirms  this,  in  either  of  the 
texts  before  us.  For  in  this  whole  chapter  he  speaks  only  of  the 
resurrection  of  the  just,  of  them  that  are  Christ's,  (ver.  23.)  So 
that  from  hence  it  cannot  be  inferred  at  all,  that  all  mankind  will  be 
made  alive  :  admitting  then  "  that  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and 
"being  made  alivcj  are  expressions  of  the  same  signification,"  this 


?AET  II.    >j  1.]  ORIGINAL   SIX.  207 

proves  nothing;  since  the  apostle  affirms  neither  one  nor  the  other, 
of  any  but  those  '  who  are  fallen  asleep  in  Christ.'  (ver.  18.)  It  is 
of  these  only  that  he  here  asserts,  their  death  came  by  the  first, 
their  resurrection  by  the  second  Adam :  or,  that  in  Adam  they  all 
died  ;  in  Christ  they  all  are  made  alive.  Whatever  life  they  all  lost 
by  means  of  Adam,  they  all  recover  by  means  of  Christ. 

"  From  this  place  we  cannot  conclude,  that  any  death  came  upon 
mankind  in  consequence  of  Adam's  sin  beside  that  death  from  which 
mankind  shall  be  delivered  at  the  resurrection."  (p.  25.)  Nay,  from 
this  place  we  cannot  conclude,  that  mankind  in  general  shall  be  de- 
livered from  any  death  at  all :  seeing  it  does  not  relate  to  mankind 
in  genei-al,  but  wholly  and  solely  to  them  that  arc  Chrisi's. 

But  from  this  place  we  may  firmly  conclude,  that  more  than  the 
mere  death  of  the  body  came  even  upon  these  hy  man,  by  Adam's 
sin,  seeing  the  resurrection  which  comes  to  them  by  man,  by  Christ,  is 
far  more  than  the  mere  removal  of  that  death:  therefore  their  dyhig 
in  Jldam  implies  far  more  than  the  bare  loss  of  the  bodily  life  we 
now  enjoy ;  seeing  their  being  made  alive  in  Christ  implies  far  more 
than  a  bare  recovery  of  that  life. 

Yet  it  is  true,  that  whatever  death  came  on  them  by  one  man,  came 
upon  all  mankind  ;  and  that  in  the  same' sense  wherein  they  died  in 
Adam,  all  mankind  died  likewise.  And  that  all  mankind  are  not 
made  alive  in  Christ,  as  they  are,  is  not  God's  fault,  but  their  own. 

I  know  not,  therefore,  what  you  mean  by  saying,  that  after  Dr. 
Jenning  has  proved  thi,^  whole  chapter,  and  consequently  the  two 
verses  in  question,  to  relate  wholly  and  solely  to  the  resurrection  of 
the  just,  "he  leaves  you  in  full  possession  of  your  argument." 
Surely,  if  he  proves  this,  he  wrests  your  whole  argument  out  of  your 
liands.     He  leaves  you  not  one  shred  of  it. 

8.  "  We  come  now,  you  say,  to  the  most  difficult  scripture  which 
speaks  of  this  point,  Rom.  v.  12 — 19.  '  As  by  one  man  sin  enter- 
ed into  the  world  and  death  by  sin,  even  so  death  passed  upon  all 
men,  for  that  all  have  sinned.  For  until  the  law,  sin  was  in  the 
world  ;  but  sin  is  not  imputed  where  there  is  no  law.  Nevertheless 
death  reigned  from  Adam  to  Moses,  even  over  them  that  had  not  sin- 
ned after  the  similitude  of  Adam's  transgression,  who  is  the  figure 
of  him  that  was  to  come.  But  not  as  die  offence,  so  also  is  the  free- 
gift.  For  if  through  the  oftence  of  one  many  be  dead,  much  more 
the  grace  of  God,  and  the  gift  by  grace,  which  is  by  one  man,  Jesus 
Christ,  hath  abounded  unto  many.  And  not  as  it  was  by  one  that 
sinned,  so  is  the  gift,  for  the  judgment  was  by  one  offence  unto  con- 
demnation, but  the  free-gift  is  of  many  offences  unto  justification. 
For  if  by  one  man's  offence  death  reigned  by  one,  much  more  they 
who  receive  the  abundance  of  grace  and  of  the  gift  of  righteousness, 
shall  reign  in  life  by  one,  Jesus  Christ.  Therefore  as  by  the  oftence 
of  one,  judgment  came  upon  all  men  to  condemnation,  even  so  by 
the  righteousness  of  one  the  free-gift  came  upon  ail  men  unto  justi- 
fication of  hfe.  For  as  by  one  man's  disobedience  many  were  made 
sinners,  so  by  the  obedience  of  One  shall  many  be  made  righteous.' " 


206  THE   DOCTRINE   OF  [pART  11.   §  i. 

On  tills  you  observe,  I.  That  this  passage  "speaks  of  temporal 
death  and  no  other."  (p.  28.)  That  it  speaks  of  temporal  death  is 
allowed  ;  but  not  that  it  speaks  of  no  other.  How  prove  you  this? 
Why  thus,  "  He  evidently  sjjeaks  of  that  death  which  'entered  into 
the  world'  by  Adam's  &in:  that  death  which  is  common  to  all  man- 
kind, which  '  passed  upon  all  men,'  that  death  which  '  reigned  from 
Adam  to  Moses ;'  that  whereby  the  many,  that  is  all  mankind,  arc 
dead."  He  does  so  :  but  how  does  it  appear,  that  the  death  which 
entered  into  the  Avorld  by  Adam's  sin,  which  is  common, to  all  man- 
kind, yfXiiich  passed  upon  all  men,  which  reigned  from  Jidam  toJSIoses, 
and  wliereby  the  many,  that  is,  all  mankind,  are  dead  :  How,  I  say, 
does  it  appear,  fiom  any  or  all  of  these  expressions,  that  this  is  tevi- 
poral  death  OJfLY ?  Just  here  lies  the  fallacy.  "  No  man,"  say 
you,  "  can  deny,  that  the  Apostle  is  here  speaking  of  that  death." 
True  :  but  when  you  infer,  "  therefore  he  speaks  of  that  only  ;"  we 
deny  the  consequence. 

9.  You  affirm,  U.  "  By  judgment  to  condemnation,  (ver.  16 — 18j^) 
he  means  the  being  adjudged  to  the  forementioned  death  :  for  the 
condemnation  inflicted  by  the  judgment  of  God,  (ver,  IG,)  is  the 
same  thing  with  being  dead."  (ver.  15.)  Perhaps  so:  but  that  this 
is  merely  the  death  of  the  body,  still  remains  to  be  proved  :  as,  on  the 
other  hand,  that  "the  gift,  or  free- gift"  opposed  thereto,  is  merely 
deliverance  from  that  death. 

You  add,  "  In  all  the  Scriptures  there  is  recorded  but  one  'judg- 
ment to  condemnation,'  one  sentence,  one  judicial  act  of  condemna- 
tion, which  '  came  upon  all  men.'  "  (p.  29.)  Nay,  in  this  sense  of  the 
word,  there  is  not  one  :  not  one.  Jormal  sentence,  which  was  explicithj 
and  judicially  pronounced  upon  all  mankind.  That  which  you  cite, 
(Gen.  iii.  17.  19,)  was  not :  neither  does  all  that  sentence  in  fact 
come  upon  all  men.  Unto  dust  shall  thou  return,  does  come  upon  alK 
but  the  other  part  does  not,  '  In  sorrow  shalt  thou  eat  of  it  all  the 
days  of  thy  life.'  This  was  formally  pronounced,  and  actually  fulfil- 
led upon  Adam  :  but  it  is  not  fulfilled  upon  all  his  posterity. 

10.  You  affirm.  III.  "  These  words  in  the  10th  verse,  'Ashy  one 
man's  disobedience  many  were  made  sinners,'  mean  the  same  as  those 
in  the  I8th,  '  As  by  the  offence  of  one  judgment  came  upon  all  men 
to  condemnation.'"  (p.  30.)  Not  exactly  the  same.  The  being 
made  sinners  is  different  from  the  hcAug  judged,  condemned,  or  punished 
as  such.  You  subjoin,  "  But  these  words,  '  By  the  offence  of  one, 
judgment  came  upon  all  men  to  condemnation,'  answer  in  sense  to 
those,  (ver.  17,)  '  By  one  mans  offence  death  reigned  by  one.'  "  (p. 
30.)  Neither  is  this  exactly  true.  Condemnation  came  first:  and  in 
consequence  of  this,  death  reigned.  You  add,  "  And  by  death  most 
certainly  is  intended  no  other  than  temporal  death.'"  Most  certainlj 
this  cannot  be  proved.  Therefore  it  does  not  follow,  "  That  these 
words,  '  By  one  man's  disobedience  many  were  made  sinners,'  mean 
no  more  than,  '  By  one  man's  disobedience'  mankind  were  made 
subject  to  temporal  death.  Review,"  you  say,  "  this  reasoning,  and 
see  if  you  can  find  any  flaw  in  it."    There  are  several ;  but  the 


PART  II.    §   l.J  ORIGINAL   SITs.  20D 

grand  flaw  lies  in  the  very  first  link  of  the  chain.  You  have  not  yet 
proved,  that  "  death  throughout  this  passage  means  only  the  death  oi' 
the  hody." 

This  flaw  is  not  amended  by  your  observing,  that  St.  Paul  was  a 
Jew,  and  wrote  to  Jews  as  well  as  Gentiles  :  that  he  often  uses  He- 
brew idioms  :  and  that  "  the  Hebrew  word  which  signifies  to  be  a 
sinner,  in  Hiphil,  signifies  to  condemn,  or  make,  (i.  e.  declare)  a  man 
a  sinner  by  a  judicial  sentence  :  that  you  can  (by  the  help  of  your 
concordance)  produce  fifteen  Hebrew  texts  in  which  the  word  is  so 
taken  !"  (p.  31,  32.)  For  if  it  would  follow  from  hence,  That  '  by 
the  oifence  of  one,  judgment  came  upon  all  men  to  condemnation,' 
is  just  equivalent  with,  'by  one  man's  disobedience  many  were  made 
sinners  :'  still  this  does  not  prove,  that  the  death  in  question  is  no 
other  than  temporal  death. 

But  indeed  it  does  not  follow,  that  two  expressions  are  just  equiva- 
lent, because  one  Hebrew  word  may  contain  them  both  :  nor  can  it 
therefore  be  inferred  from  hence,  that  many  were  made  sinners  is  just 
equivalent  with  judgment  came  upon  all  men  to  condemnation.  Rather, 
the  former  expression  answers  to  all  have  sinned,  the  latter  to  death 
passed  upon  all  men.  Sin  is  the  cause  of  their  condemnation,  and  not 
the  same  thing  with  it- 

You  go  on.  "  Besides  all  this,  it  is  here  expressly  affirmed,  that 
the  many  are  made  sinners  by  the  disobedience  of  another  man." 
It  is  expressly  aflarmed;  and  by  an  inspired  apostle.  Therefore  I 
firmly  believe  it.  "  But  they  can  be  made  sinners  by  the  disobe- 
dience of  another  in  no  other  sense  than  as  they  are  sufferers."  How 
is  this  proved  ]  We  grant,  the  Hebrew  words  for  sin  and  iniquity,  are 
often  used  to  signify  suffering.  But  this  does  not  prove,  that  the 
phrase  '  were  made  sinners,'  signifies  only,  they  leere  made  sufferers. 

"  So  Christ  was  made  sin  for  us."  (p.  35.)  No  :  not  so  :  but  as 
he  was  made  an  offering  for  sin.  "  He  suffered  on  account  of  the 
sins  of  men,  and  so  he  was  made  sin :"  yes,  a  sin-offering.  But  it 
is  never  said,  he  was  made  a  sinner  :  therefore  the  expressions  are 
not  parallel.  But  he  need  not  have  been  made  sin  at  all,  if  we  had 
not  been  made  sinners  by  Adam.  "  And  men  suffer  on  account  of 
Adam's  sin,  and  so  they  are  made  sinners."  Are  they  made  sinners 
so  only  ?     That  remains  to  be  proved. 

"  It  seems  then  confirmed  beyond  all  doubt.  That  '  by  one  man's 
disobedience  many  Avere  made  sinners,'  meaneth  only,  by  Adam's 
sin,  the  manj-,  that  is,  all  mankind  'were  made  subject  to  death.'  " 
He  that  will  believe  it,  (taking  death  m  the  common  sense,)  may. 
But  you  have  not  confirmed  it  by  one  sound  argument. 

1 1 .  You  affirm,  IV.  "  The  Apostle  draws  a  comparison  between 
Adam  and  Ciirist,  between  what  Adam  did,  with  the  consequences 
of  it,  and  what  Christ  did,  with  the  consequences  of  that.  And  this 
comparison  is  the  main  thing  he  has  in  view."  (p.  36.) 

This  is  true.  "The  comparison  begins  at  the  12th  verse. 
'  AVherefore,  as  by  one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world,  and  death 
}>y  sin.'     There  he  stops  awhile,  and  brings  an  argument  to  prove, 

T2 


21-0  TUB    DOCTRINE    OF  [tART  II.  §^  i  • 

That  deatli  came  on  mankind  through  Adam's  transgression."  (p, 
37,  38.)  He  does  so  :  but  not  before  he  had  finished  his  sentence, 
which  Hterally  runs  thus  :  '  As  by  one  man  sin  entered  into  the 
world,  and  death  by  sin,  even  so  death  passed  upon  all  men,  in  that 
all  had  sinned.'  The  comparison,  therefore,  between  Adam  and 
Christ,  begins  not  at  the  12th,  but  the  14th  verse.  Of  this  you  seem 
sensible  yourself;  when  you  say,  "  Adam  is  the  pattern  of  him  that 
was  to  come.  Here  a  new  thought  starts  into  the  Apostle's  mind." 
(p.  39.)  For  it  was  not  a  new  thought,  starting  into  his  mind  here, 
if  it  was  the  same  which  he  began  to  express  at  the  12th  verse. 

You  proceed,  "  The  extent  of  the  free-gift  in  Christ  answers  to 
the  extent  of  the  consequences  of  Adam's  sin;  nay,  abounds  far 
beyond  them.  This  he  incidentally  handles,  (ver.  15,  16, 17.)  and 
then  resumes  his  main  design,  (ver.  18,  19,)  half  of  which  he  had 
executed  in  the  12th  verse."  Not  one  jot  of  it.  That  verse  is  a 
complete  sentence,  not  half  of  one  only.  And  the  particle  therefore 
prefixed  to  the  18th  verse,  shows  that  the  discourse  goes  straight 
forward  :  and  that  this,  as  well  as  the  19th  verse,  are  closely  con- 
nected with  the  17th. 

Allowing  then,  "  That  the  Apostle  draws  a  comparison  between 
the  disobedience  of  Adam,  by  which  all  men  are  brought  under 
condemnation,  and  the  obedience  of  Christ,  by  which  all  men  are, 
(in  some  sense,)  justified  unto  life;"  (p.  40.)  still  it  does  not  appear, 
either  that  this  condemnation  means  no  more  than  the  death  of  the  body. 
or  that  this  justification  means  no  more  than  the  resurrection  of  the 
body. 

12.  You  affirm,  V.  "  The  whole  of  the  apostle's  argument  stands 
upon  these  two  principles,  that  by  the  offence  of  one  death  passed 
upon  ali  men  ;  and  by  the  jbedience  of  one,  all  are  justified." 

This  is  allowed.  But  I  cannot  allow  your  interpretation  of  sin 
is  not  imputed,  ichen  there  is  no  law,  or  (as  you  would  oddly,  and  con.- 
trary  to  all  precedent,  translate  it,  ichei-e  law  is  not  in  being.)  "  The 
sins  of  mankind,"  say  you,  "  were  not  imputed,  were  not  taxed 
with  the  forfeiture  of  life,  because  the  law  which  subjects  the  trans- 
gressor to  death,  was  not  then  in  being.  For  it  was  abrogated  upon 
Adam's  transgression,  and  Avas  not  again  in  force  till  revived  by 
Moses."  (p.  41.)  On  this  I  Avould  ask,  1.  Where  is  it  written,  that 
"  the  law  which  subjected  the  transgressor  to  death,  was  abrogated 
by  Adam's  transgression  ?'  I  want  a  clear  text  for  this.  2.  Sup- 
pose it  was,  how  does  it  appear,  that  it  was  not  again  in  force  till 
revived  by  Moses  1  3.  Did  not  that  law,  '  whoso  sheddeth  man's 
blood,  by  man  shall  his  blood  be, shed,'  "subject  the  transgressor  to 
death  1"  And  was  it  "  not  in  force"  after  Adam's  transgression  and 
before  Moses  ?  4.  What 'do  you  mean  by  that  ambiguous  expres- 
sion, "  Were  not  taxed  with  the  forfeiture  of  life  ?'  Your  argu- 
ment requires  that  it  should  mean,  '<  Were  not  punished  or  punishable 
withdeath.^^  But  is  this  true?  Were  not  the  sins  of  the  men  of 
Sodom,  and  indeed  the  whole  antediluvian  world,  punished  with 


PART  11.  §  K]  oniGiNAi  sn*.  ^]i} 

death,  during  that  period  1  5.  Was  not  every  wilful,  ImpeniteKt 
transgressor,  during  this  whole  time,  subject  to  death  everlasting  1 

Neither  can  I  allow  that  unnatural  interpretation  of  '  them  who 
had  not  sinned  after  the  similitude  of  Adam's  transgression'  "  had 
not  sinned  against  law,  making  death  the  penalty  of  their  sin,  as 
Adam  did."  (p.  42.)  Do  not  the  words  obviously  mean,  "  Had  not 
sinned hy  any  actual  sin,  as  Adam  did?" 

Nay,  "  the  Sodomites  and  Antediluvians  are  no  objection  to  this." 
That  is  strange  indeed  !  But  how  so  1  "  Because  extraordinary  in- 
terpositions come  under  no  rule,  but  the  will  of  God."  What  is 
that  to  the  purpose  1  Their  sins  are  actually  punished  with  death, 
"  during  that  space,  wherein"  you  say  "  mankind  were  not  subject 
to  death  for  their  transgressions."  They  were,  subject  to  death  for 
their  transgressions,  as  God  demonstrated  by  those  extraordinary  in- 
terposilions. 

You  add,  "  That  law,  *  Whoso  sheddeth  man's  blood,  by  man 
shall  his  blood  be  shed,'  makes  death  the  penalty  of  murder."  (p. 
43.)  It  does,  and  thereby  overthrows  your  whole  assertion,  "  No, 
for,  1.  It  was  not  enacted  till  the  year  of  the  world  1657."  Well, 
and  if  it  had  been  enacted  only  the  year  before  Moses  was  born,. it 
would  still  have  destroyed  your  argument.  But,  2.  "  It  is  given  as 
a  rule  for  magistrates  in  executing  justice,  and  not  as  a  declaration 
of  the  penalty  of  sin  to  be  inflicted  by  God  himself."  What  then  ] 
What  does  it  matter,  whether  the  penalty  annexed  by  God,  were  in- 
flicted by  God  or  man  ?  However,  I  suppose,  this  punishment  on 
the  Antediluvians,  and  on  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  was  "  inflicted  by 
God  himself."  But,  3.  "  None  of  these  were  made  mortal  by  those 
sins."  Certainly,  infallibly  true!  And  yet  the  case  of  any  of  these 
abundantly  proves,  that  the  law  was  in  force  from  Adam  to  Moses, 
even  according  to  your  own  definition  of  it,  "  a  rule  of  duty,  with 
the  penalty  of  death  annexed,  as  due  to  the  transgressor  from  God," 

13.  You  affirm,  VI.  "  The  consequences  of  Adam's  sin,  answer 
those  of  Christ's  obedience  ;  but  not  exactly,  *  Not  as  the  offence, 
so  is  the  free-gift.  For  if  through  the  offence  of  one  many  be 
dead,  much  more  the  grace  (or  favour)  of  God  and  the  gift  (the 
benefits  that  are)  by  grace,  which  is  by  one  man  Jesus  Christ,  hath 
ABOUNDED  unto  many.' ver.  15.  (p.  43,  44.)  That  is,  he  hath  in 
Christ  bestowed  benefits  upon  mankind,  far  exceeding  the  conse- 
quences of  Adam's  sin  ;  in  erecting  a  new  dispensation,  furnished 
with  a  glorious  fund  of  light  and  truth,  means  and  motives."  This; 
is  true  :  but  how  small  a  part  of  the  truth  1  What  a  poor,  low  ac« 
count  of  the  Christian  dispensation  1 

You  go  on.  (ver.  16.)  '  Not  as  it  was  by  one  that  sinned,  so  is  the 
gift ;  for  the  judgment  was  by  one  offence  to  condemnation  ;  but 
the  free  gift  is  of  many  offences  unto  justification  :'  "  That  is,  The 
grace  of  God  in  Christ  discharges  mankind  from  the  consequences 
of  Adam's  one  offence."  Does  it  entirely  discharge  them  from  thes^ 
consequences  ]  From  sorrow,  and  labour,  and  death  1  Which  you 
affirmed,  awhile  ago,  to  be  the  only  consequences  of  it  that  affect 


'M'2  THE  DOCTRINE  6T  [PART  II.  §   1 . 

Ilis  posterity.     It  "  also  sets  them  quite  to  rights  with  God,  both  as 
to  a  conformity  to  the  law  and  eternal  Ufe." 

Is  not  this  allowing  too  much  :  is  it  well  consistent  with  what  you 
said  before  1  In  the  19th  verse  the  apostle  concludes  the  whole  ar- 
gument ;  <  As  by  one  man's  disobedience  many  were  made  sinners, 
so  by  the  obedience  of  one  shall  many  be  made  righteous.'  "  (p.  29, 
&c.)  Were  made  sinners  you  aver  means  only,  were  made  mortal. 
If  so,  the  counterpart,  made  righteous,  can  only  mean,  made  immortal. 
And  that  you  thought  so  then,  appears  Irom  your  citing"  as  a  parallel 
text,  '  In  Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive  :'  which  you  had  before  as- 
serted to  mean  only,  shall  be  raised  from  the  dead. 

14.  "  Hence  it  folioweth,  1.  That  the  abounding  of  God's  grace, 
and  the  blessings  by  that  grace,  doth  not  respect  the  consequences 
of  Adam's  sin,  hath  no  reference  to  his  transgression,  but  to  the 
grace  of  God  and  the  obedience  of  Christ."  (p.  45.)  "  The  abound- 
ing of  God's  grace,"  you  inform  us,  "  has  reference  to  the  grace  of 
God."  Most  sure.  But  this  does  not  prove,  that  it  has  no  reference 
to  the  consequences  of  Adam's  sin.  If  we  gain  more  blessings  by 
Christ  than  Ave  lost  by  Adam,  it  is  doubtless  abounding  grace.  But 
still  it  has  a  reference  to  Adam's  transgression,  and  the  conse- 
quences of  it.  It  is  over  these  that  it  abounds.  Therefore  it  has 
a  manifest  respect  to  them. 

"  It  folioweth,  secondly.  That  in  the  18th  and  I9th  verses  the  apos- 
tle considers  the  effects  of  Christ's  obedience  only  so  far  as  they  an- 
swer to  and  reverse  the  consequences  of  Adam's  disobedience  ;  the 
additional  benefits  flowing  therefrom  having  been  mentioned  apart  in 
the  15th,  16th,  and  17th  verses."  (p.  47.)  In  those  verses  the 
apostle  does  undoubtedly  show,  how  the  blessing  by  Christ  abound- 
ed over  the  curse  by  Adam.  But  what  then]  How  does  this 
prove,  that  the  18th  and  19th  verses  do  not  respect  all  the  benefits 
mentioned  before  1  Without  question  they  do  :  they  are  a  general 
conclusion,  not  from  one,  but  all  the  preceding  verses. 

"  Again  observe.  That  the  justification  to  life  is  such  a  justification 
as  comes  upon  all  men."  (p.  47.)  It  may  in  some  sense.  But  does 
it  in  fact  ?  According  to  your  sense  of  it,  it  comes  upon  none.  For 
if  it  means,  "  The  discharging  men  from  the  consequences  of 
Adam's  sin;  and  if  the  only  consequences  of  that  sin  are  sorrow, 
labour  and  death,"  it  is  manifest  no  man  upon  earth  is  justified  to  this 
day. 

But  you  go  on.  "As  justification  to  life  comes  upon  all  men." 
No:  not  in  the  proper,  scriptural,  sense  of  justification.  That  term 
is  never  once  in  the  Bible  used  for  the  resurrection,  no  more  than  for 
heaven  or  hell. 

It  may  be  proper  here  once  for  all  to  observe,  that  what  St.  Paul 
says  of  abounding  grace  is  simply  this,  1 .  The  condemnation  came  by 
one  offence  only  :  the  acquittal  is  from  many  offences:  2.  They  who 
receive  this  shall  enjoy  a  far  higher  blessing  by  Christ  than  they  lost 
by  Adam.  In  both  these  respects  the  consequences  of  Christ's  death 
abound  over  the   consequences  of  Adam's  sin.     And   this  whole 


KvllT  II.  §  1.]  ORIGINAL   SIS,  2tW 

blessing  by  Christ  is  termed  in  the  18th  verse  justification^  in  the  19th 
being  made  righteous. 

"  Further,  The  phrase,  being  made  righteous,  as  well  as  being 
made  sinners,  is  a  Hebrew  way  of  speaking,"  (p.  49.)  I  do  not 
allow  that.  Both  the  phrases  tcx^n-xa-ext  haetiot,  or  uf/M^niXoi,  are  pure 
and  good  Greek.  That,  therefore,  there  is  any  Hebraism  at  all  in 
these  expressions,  cannot  be  admitted  without  proof.  If  then  the 
same  Hebrew  word  does  signify  to  make  righteous,  and  to  acquit  in 
judgment ;  it  does  not  follow,  that  the  Greek  word,  here  translated, 
made  righteous,  means  only  being  acquitted.  You  yourself  say  the 
contrary.  You  but  now  defined  this  very  gift,  "  The  benefits 
that  are  by  grace."  (p.  44.)  And  in  explaining  those  very  words, 
'  The  free  gift  is  of  many  offences  unto  justification,'  affirmed,  that 
is,  "  The  grace  of  God  in  Christ,  not  only  discharges  mankind  from 
the  consequences  of  Adam's  sin,  but  also  sets  them  quite  to  rights 
with  God,  both  as  to  a  conformity  to  the  law,  and  as  to  eternal  life.'* 
And  is  this  no  more  than  "  acquitting  them  in  judgment  1"  Or  "re- 
versing the  sentence  of  condemnation  V^ 

Through  this  whole  passage  it  may  be  observed,  that  the  gift,  the 
free  gift,  the  gift  by  grace  mean  one  and  the  same  thing,  even  the 
whole  benefit  given  by  the  abounding  grace  of  God,  through  the  obe- 
dience of  Christ :  abounding  both  with  regard  to  the  fountain  itself^ 
and  streams  :  abundant  grace  producing  abundant  blessings. 

If  then  these  verses  are  "  evidently  parallel  to  those,  1  Cor,  xv. 
21,  22,"  it  follows  even  hence,  that  dying  and  being  made  alive,  m 
the  latter  passage,  do  not  refer  to  the  body  only  :  but  that  dying  im- 
plies, all  the  evils,  temporal  and  spiritual,  which  are  derived  from 
Adam's  sin  ;  and  being  made  alive,  all  the  blessings  which  are  derived 
from  Christ,  in  time  and  in  eternity. 

Whereas,  therefore,  you  add,  "It  is  now  evident  surely  beyond 
all  doubt,  (strong  expressions !)  that  the  consequences  of  Adam's  sin 
here  spoken  of,  are  no  other  than  the  death  which  comes  upon  all 
men  :"  (p.  50.)  I  must  beg  leave  to  reply.  It  is  not  evident  at  all ; 
nay,  it  is  tolerably  evident  on  the  contrary,  that  this  deatJi  implies  all 
manner  of  evils,  to  which  either  the  body  or  soul  is  liable. 

15.  You  next  re-consider  the  12th  verse,  which  you  understand 
thus :  "  '  Death  passed  upon  all  men,  for  that  all  have  sinned,' 
namely,  in  Adam.  '  All  have  sinned,'  that  is,  are  subjected  to  death 
through  that  one  offence  of  his."  (p.  51.) 

You  said  before,  "  '  Death  passed  upon  all  men,'  means,  all  were 
by  a  judicial  sentence  made  subject  to  death."  And  here  you  say.. 
"  <  All  have  sinned,'  means,  all  have  been  subjected  to  death."  So 
the  apostle  asserts,  "'  All  were  subjected  to  sin,  because  all  were 
subjected  to  death."  Not  so.  Sin  is  one  thing,  death  another  ;  and 
the  former  is  here  assigned  as  the  cause  of  the  latter. 

Although  the  criticism  on  tp  u,  (p.  52.)  is  hable  to  much  excep- 
tion, yet  I  leave  that  and  the  Hebrew  citations  as  they  stand  :  be= 
cause,  though  they  may  cause  many  readers  to  admire  your  learnings 
yet  they  are  not  to  the  point, 


214  THE   DOCTRINE    OF  [PART  II.  §  1, 

"  Seeing  then  the  phrase  *  all  are  made  sinners'  hath  been  demon- 
strated to  signify,  all  are  subjected  to  death  by  a  judicial  sentence ; 
and  seeing  the  apostle's  whole  argument  turns  on  this  point,  that  all 
men  die  through  the  one  offence  of  Adam  :  who  can  doubt,  but  all 
have  sinned,  means  the  same  with  all  are  made  sinners  V  (p.  53, 
54.)  I  do  not  doubt  it ;  but  I  still  deny  that  either  phrase  means  no 
more  than  all  are  in  a  state  of  suffering. 

16.  In  order  fully  to  clear  this  important  text,  I  shall  here  subjoin 
some  of  Dr.  Jennings's  remarks.*  "The  apostle  having  treated  in 
the  preceding  chapter  of  the  cause  and  manner  of  a  sinner's  justifi- 
cation before  God,  namely  through  the  merits  of  Christ,  and  by  faith 
in  his  blood  ;  and  having  spoken  of  the  fruits  of  justification  in  the 
former  part  of  thi?  chapter  :  he  proceeds  in  the  verses  before  us,  to  il- 
lustrate our  salvation  by  Christ,  by  comparing  it  with  our  ruin  by 
Adam.  He  compares  Adam  with  Christ,  and  shows  how  what  we 
lost  by  the  one,  is  restored  by  the  other  with  abundant  advantage. 
He  makes  Adam  to  be  a  figure  or  type  of  Christ :  considering  them 
both  as  public  persons,  representing .  the  one  all  his  natural  descend- 
ants, the  other  all  his  spiritual  seed :  the  one,  Adan?,  all  mankind, 
who  are  'all  guilty  before  God:'  the  othei',  Christ,  all  those  'who 
obtain  the  righter»usness  of  God,  which  is  by  faith,  to  all  them  that 
beheve.' 

"  Concerning  the  consequences  of  Adam's  sin  upon  his  posterity, 
we  have  here  the  following  particulars : 

I.  "  That  by  one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world  :  that  the  whole 
world  is  some  way  concerned  in  Adam's  sin.  And  this  indeed  is  evi- 
dent, because 

U.  "  Death,  which  is  the  wages  of  srn,  and  the  very  punishment 
threatened  to  Adam's  first  transgression,  'entered  by  sin,  and  passed 
upon  all  men  ;'  is  actually  inflicted  on  all  mankind.  Upon  which  it 
is  asserted  in  the  nex'  words, 

HI.  "  That  all  have  sinned  :  '  Even  so  death  passed  upon  all  men, 
for  that  all  have  sinned.'  All  men  then  are  deemed  sinners  in  the 
eye  of  God,  on  account  of  that  one  sin,  of  which  alone  the  apostle 
is  here  speaking.     And 

IV.  "  Not  only  after,  but  before,  and  '  until  the  law,'  (given  by 
Moses,)  <  sin  was  in  the  world;'  and  men  were  deemed  sinners,  and 
accordingly  punished  with  death,  through  many  generations.  Now 
'sin  is  not  imputed  where  there  is  no  law;'  nevertheless  death  reigned 
from  Adam  to  Moses  :  plainly  showing,  that  all  mankind,  during  that 
whole  period,  had  sinned  in  Adam  and  so  died,  in  virtue  of  the  death 
threatened  to  him.  And  death  could  not  then  be  inflicted  on  man- 
kind for  any  actual  sin,  because  it  was  inflicted  on  so  many  infants, 
who  had  neither  eaten  of  the  forbidden  fruit,  nor  committed  any  ac- 
tual sin  whatever,  and  therefore  *  had  not  sinned'  in  any  sense,  'after 
the  similitude  of  Adam's  transgression.'     Therefore, 

V.  "It  was  'through  the  offence  of  one  that  many  are  dead.'  (vcr 

■'  Yindication  of  the  Scripture  Doctrine  of  Original  Sin,  page  1 8—35. 


yARTII.  §1.]  ORIGINAL  SIN.  215 

16.)     'By  one  otFence  death  reigned  by  one.'  (ver.  17.)     And  see- 
ing the  sin  of  Adam  is  thus  punished  in  all  men,  it  follows, 

VI.  "  That  they  were  all  involved  in  that  sentence  of  condemna- 
tion, which  Grod  passed  upon  him.  '  The  judgment  was  by  one  to 
condemnation.'  (ver.  16.)  '  By  one  offence  judgment  came  upon 
all  men  to  condemnation.'  (ver.  18.)  And  since  it  is  so  plain,  that 
all  men  are  actually  punished  for  Adam's  sin,  it  must  needs  follow, 

VII.  "  That  they  i:ll  sinned  in  Adam.  'By  one  man's  disobedience 
many  were  made  sinners.'  They  were  so  constituted  sinners  by  Adam's 
sinning  as  to  become  liable  to  the  punishment  threatened  to  his  trans- 
gression. 

"  Between  Adam  and  Christ,  the  type  and  the  antitype,  St.  Paul 
draws  the  parallel  in  the  following  particulars. 

I.  "  Both  have  done  something  by  which  many  others  are  affcct- 
€d,  who  either  lose  or  gain  by  what  they  did:  'Through  the  offence 
of  one  many  are  dead  :  by  one  the  gift  of  grace  hath  abounded  to 
many.'  (ver.  15.) 

II.  That  which  the  ftrst  Adam  did,  by  which  many,  i.  e.  all  men, 
receive  hurt,  was  sin,  offence,  and  disobedience  :  they  all  suffer  by 
one  that  sinned,  (ver.  lli.)  '  By  the  offence  of  one,  by  one  man's  dis- 
obedience.' (ver.  18,  i9.)  That  which  the  Second  Adam  did  by 
which  many,  that  is,  all  who  believe,  receive  benefit,  is  righteousnest^ 
and  obedience  :  '  By  the  righteousness  of  one,  by  the  obedience  of 
one.'  (ver,  18,  19.) 

III.  "The  detriment  which  all  men  receive  through  Adam  it-, 
that  they  '  are  made  sinners  :'  that  'judgment  is  come  upon  them  to 
condemnation  ;'  in  consequence  of  which,  death,  the  wages  of  sin, 
is  inflicted  on  every  one  of  them.  The  benefit  which  all  believer-, 
receive  through  Christ,  is  grace  or  the  favour  of  God,  justification, 
righteousness,  or  sanctification,  and  eternal  life.  '  The  grace  of  God, 
and  the  gift  by  grace,  hath  by  one  man,  Jesus  Christ,  abounded  io 
many.  By  the  righteousness  of  one,  the  free  gif)  came  upon  all 
men  (who  receive  it)  to  justification  of  hfe.  By  the  obedience  of 
one  many  are  made  righteous.'  (ver.  15.  18,  19.) 

"  Thus  the  apostle  shows  the  parity  between  the  effects  of  Adam's 
sin,  and  of  Christ's  righteousness.  Only  in  two  instances  he  shows, 
that  the  effect  of  the  latter,  vastly  exceeds  the  effect  of  the  former. 

I.  "It  removes  many  sins,  besides  that  one  sin  of  Adam,  which 
so  affected  all  his  posterity.  '  If  through  one  offence  many  be  dead, 
much  more  the  graoe  of  God  by  Jesus  Christ  hath  abounded  to 
many.  The  judgment  was  by  one  to  condemnation;  but  the  free 
gift  is  of  many  offences  unto  justification.'  (ver.  15,  16.) 

II.  "  Christ  raises  believers  to  a  far  happier  state  than  that  which 
Adam  enjoyed  in  Paradise.  '  Much  more  they  who  receive  abun- 
dance of  grace,  and  of  the  gift  of  righteousness,  shall  reign  in  life, 
by  one,  Jesus  Christ.'  "  (ver.  17.) 

17.  Your  paraphrase  on  the  text,  (p.  55 — 64,)  being  only  a  repe- 
tition of  what  you  had  said  over  and  over  before,  does  not  require 
any  separate  consideration.     Only  I  must  observe  a  few  mistakes 


S16  THE   BOCTKlMe  OF  [fART  IJ.    §    1> 

which  have  not  occurred  before.  "  The  resurrection  is  the  first 
and  fundamental  step  in  the  gospel-salvation."  (p.  61.)  No:  'he 
shall  save  his  people  from  their  sins ;'  this  is  the  first  and  fundamen- 
tal step.  2.  You  have  very  grievously  mistaken  the  meaning  of  four 
texts  in  the  Gth  of  St.  John.  '  This  is  the  Father's  will,  that  of  all 
which  he  hath  given  me,  1  should  lose  nothing,  but  should  raise  it 
up  again  at  the  last  day.'  (v.  39.)  '  This  is  the  will  of  him  that  sent 
me,  that  every  one  that  seeth  the  Son,  and  believeth  on  him,  should 
have  everlasting  life,  and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day.'  (ver.  40.) 
*  No  man  can  come  to  me,  except  the  Father  draw  him ;  and  1  will 
raise  him  up  at  the  last  day.'  (ver.  44.)  '  Whoso  eateth  my  flesh  and 
drinketh  my  blood,  hath  eternal  life,  and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the 
last  day.'  (v.  54.)  Now  you  cite  all  these  texts  as  relating  to  the  ge- 
neral resurrection:  whereas  not  one  of  them  relates  to  it  at  all.  They 
are  all,  promises  make  to  true  believers  only ;  and  relate  wholly  and 
solely  to  the  resurrection  of  the  just. 

18.  It  remains  then,  all  that  has  been  advanced  to  the  contrary 
notwithstanding,  that  the  true  and  rational  way  of  accounting  foi' 
the  general  wickedness  of  mankind,  in  all  ages  and  nations,  is  pointed 
out  in  these  words.  In  Adam  all  die.  In  and  through  their  first 
parent,  all  his  posterity  died  in  a  spiritual  sense :  and  they  remain 
wholly  'dead  in  trespasses  and  sins,'  till  the  Second  Adam  makes 
them  alive.  By  this  '  one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world  and  passed 
upon  all  men.'  And  through  the  infection  which  they  derive  from 
him,  all  men  are  and  ever  were  by  nature  entirely  'alienated  from 
the  life  of  God,  without  hope,  without  God  in  the  world.' 

1.  Your  appendix  to  the  first  part  of  your  book  is  wholly  employed 
in  answering  two  questions.  "  One  is,  How  is  it  consistent  with 
justice,  that  all  men  should  die  by  the  disobedience  of  one  man  ? 
The  other.  How  shall  we  account  for  all  men's  rising  again,  by  the 
obedience  of  another  man,  Jesus  Christ  ?"  (p.  65.) 

You  may  determine  the  former  question  as  you  please,  since  it 
does  not  touch  the  main  point  in  debate.  I  shall  therefore  take  no 
farther  pains  about  it,  than  to  make  a  short  extract  of  what  Dr.  Jen- 
nings speaks  on  the  head.      (Vind.  p.  36,  &c.) 

2.  "As  to  the  first  question  Dr.  Taylor  gets  rid  of  all  difficulty, 
that  may  arise  from  the  consideration  of  God's  justice,  by  ascribing 
it  wholly  to  his  goodness,  that '  death  passed  upon  all  men.  Death, 
he  tells  us,  is  upon  the  u-hole  a  benefit.'  It  is  certain,  that  believers  in 
Christ  receive  benefit  by  it.  But  this  gentleman  will  have  death  to 
be  an  "  original  benefit,  and  that  to  all  mankind  :  merely  intended 
to  'increase  the  vanity  of  all  earthly  things,  and  to  abate  their  force 
to  delude  us."  He  afterward  displays  the  benefit  of  shortening  hu- 
man life,  to  its  present  standard :  that  death  being  nearer  to  our 
view  might  be  a  powerful  motive  to  regard  less  the  things  of  a 
transitory  world :  but  does  the  nearer  view  of  death,  in  fact  pro- 
duce this  effect  ]  Does  not  the  common  observation  of  all  ages' 
prove  the  contrary  1  Has  not  covetousness  been  the  peculiar  vice 
j>f  old  age?  As  death  is   nearer  to   the  view,  we  plainly  sec. 


FART  n.  §  1:]  ORIGINAL  snc.  CI7 

that  men  have  more  and  more  regard  for  the  thing's  of  a  transitory 
world.  We  are  sure  therefore  that  death  is  no  such  benefit  to  the 
generality  of  men.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  the  king  of  terrors  to 
them,  the  burden  of  their  lives,  and  bane  of  their  pleasures.  To 
talk  therefore  of  death's  being  a  benefit,  an  original  benefit,  and  that 
to  all  mankind,  is  to  talk  against  the  common  sense  and  experience 
of  the  whole  woi-ld." 

"  It  is  strange  death  should  be  originally  given  by  God  as  a  benefit 
to  man,  and  that  the  shortening  of  man's  life  afterwards  should  be 
designed  as  a-  farther  benefit :  and  yet  that  God  should  so  often 
promise  his  peculiar  people  long  life  as  the  reward  of  obedience, 
and  threaten  them  with  death  as  a  punishment  of  disobedience  ! 

"  But  the  Scripture,  he  says,  affirms,  that  sutierings  are  the  chas- 
tisements, of  our  heavenly  Father,  and  death  in  particular.  But 
does  not  every  chastisement  suppose  a  fault?  Must  he  not  be  a 
cruel  father,  who  Arill  chasten  his  children  for  no  fault  at  alU  If  then 
God  does  but  chasten  us  for  Adam's  sin,  the  fault  of  it  must  some 
way  lie  upon  us.  Else  we  suppose  God's  dealings  with  his  children 
to  be  unreasonable  and  unrighteous." 

3.  I  would  only  add  two  or  three  obvious  questions.  1.  Did  God 
propose  death  as  a  benefit  in  the  original  threatening  1  2.  Did  he  re- 
present it  as  a  benefit  in  the  sentence  pronounced  on  Adam,  '  Dust 
thou  art,  and  unto  dust  thou  shalt  return  'i'  3.  Do  the  inspired 
writers  speak  of  God's  '  bringing  a  flood  on  the  world  of  the  un- 
godly,' as  ar  benefit  or  a  punishment  ?  4.  Do  they  mention  the  destruc- 
tion of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  as  designed  for  a  benefit  to  them  1 
5.  Is  it  by  way  of  benefit,  that  God  declares,  '  The  soul  that  sinneth, 
it  shall  die  ;'  Certainly  this  point  is  not  defensible.  Death  is  pro- 
perly not  a  benefit,  but  a  punishment. 

4.  The  other  question  is.  How  shall  we  account  for  all  men's  rising 
again,  by   the  obedience   of  another   man,   Jesus  Christ  ?    (p.  70.) 

"  To  set  this  in  a  clear  light,  I  ask  another  question.  What  was  it 
that  gave  the  glorious  personage,  emblemized  by  the  Lamb,  (Rev,  v. 
!,  &c.)  his  superior  worthiness,  his  prevailing  interest  in  God,  be- 
yond all  others  in  heaven  and  earth  1  It  was  his  being  slain,  that  is. 
his  obedience  to  God,  and  good-will  to  men  :  it  was  his  consum- 
mate virtue.  '  Thou  art  worthy — Why  1  Because  thou  hast  exhi- 
bited to  God  such  an  instance  of  virtue,  obedience,  and  goodness. 
Thou  hast  sacrificed  thy  life  in  the  cause  of  truth,  and  hast  redeemed 
us,  by  that  act  of  the  highest  obedience."  (p.  71,  72.) 

With  what  extreme  wariness  is  this  whole  paragraph  worded !  You 
do  not  care  to  say  directly,  "Jesus  Christ  is  either  a  little  God,  or  he 
is  no  God  at  all."  So  you  say  it  indirectly,  in  a  heap  of  smooth,  la- 
boured, decent  circumlocutions.  Yet  permit  me  to  ask,  was  "that 
act  of  obedience,  the  original  and  sole  ground"  of  his  prevailing  in- 
terest in  God,  and  of  his  worthiness,  not  only  to  open  the  book,  but  to 
receiijc  from  all  the  armies  of  heaven,  'the  power,  and  the  wisdom, 
and  the  riches,  and  the  strength,  and  the  honour,  and  the  glory,  and 
the  blessing  ?'  (Rev.  v.  12.)    And  is  this  act  the  original  and  the  sole 

Vol.  9^.— U 


218  •  THE   DGCTBINE  OF  [PART  II.    §   2, 

ground,  why  all  men  must  honour  him  even  as  they  honour  the 
Father?  Yea,  and  why  'every  creature  which  is  in  the  heaven,  and 
on  the  earth,  and  under  the  earth,  and  on  the  sea,  and  all  that  are 
in  them,  say.  To  him  that  sitteth  on  the  throne  and  to  the  Lamb,  is 
the  blessing-,  and  the  honour,  and  the  glory,  and  the  power,  for  ever 
and  ever  !'  (ver.  13.) 

'  To  him  that  sitteth  on  the  throne,  and  to  the  Lamb :' — Does  that 
mean,  to  the  great  God  and  the.  little  Godl  If  so,  when  all  'crea- 
tures in  heaven  and  earth,'  all  throughout  the  universe,  thus  '  honoui' 
him  even  as  they  honour  the  Father,'  are  they  not  doing  him  too 
much  honour  1  '  My  glory,'  saith  the  Lord,  '  I  will  not  give  to 
another.'     How  comes  it  then  to  be  given  to  the  Lamb  ? 

5.  You  proceed,  "  Tlie  worthiness  of  Christ  is  his  consummate 
virtue,  obedience  to  God,  and  benevolence  to  his  creatures."  Is  this 
the  only  ground  of  his  worthiness  to  be  honoured  even  as  the  Father  ? 
Is  it  on  this  ground  alone,  that  '  all  the  angels  of  God  are  to  worshij) 
him  ]'  Or  rather,  because  « in  the  beginning,'  from  everlasting,  he 
*  was  with  God,  and  was  God.' 

"  Virtue  is  the  only  price  v/hich  purchaseth  every  thing  with  God. 
True  virtue,  or  the  right  exercise  of  reason  is  true  worth,  and  the 
only  valuable  consideration  which  prevails  with  God."  (p.  73.) 

Do  you  then  conceive  this  to  be  the  exact  meaning  of  St.  Paul, 
when  he  says,  '  Ye  are  bougjit  with  a  price  V  And  that  where  he 
speaks  of  *  the  church  of  God  which  he  hath  purchased  with  his  o\vn 
blood,'  he  means,  with  his  oion  virtue  ?  Agreeably  to  which,  '  Thou 
hast  redeemed  us  by  thy  blood,'  must  mean.  By  "  the  right  exercise 
of  thy  reason  /"  Well  then  might  father  Socinus  say,  "  Tota  redemp- 
tionis  nostrm  per  Christum  JMetaphora,  The  ichole  metaphor  of  our  re- 
demption by  Christ."  For  on  this  scheme,  there  is  nothing  real  in  it. 
"  It  was  not  the  mere  natural  power  or  strength  of  the  Lamb,  but 
his  most  excellent  character."— Sir,  Do  you  '  iionour  the  Son,  even 
as  you  honour  the  Father  V  If  you  did,  could  you  possibly  talk  of 
him  in  this  strain  ? 

However,  all  this  does  not  affect  the  question  :  but  it  still  remains 
an  unshaken  truth,  that  all  men's  dying  in  Adam  is  the  grand  cause, 
4vhy  the  whole  world  lieth  in  wickedness. 

Newington,  Ja/i.  18,  1757. 
1.  In  your  second  part  you  profess  to  "examine  the  principal 
passages  of  Scripture,  which  divines  have  applied  in  support  of  the 
doctrine  of  original  sin :  particularly  those  cited  by  the  Assembly  of 
Divines  in  their  larger  Catechism."  (p.  87,  88.)  To  this  I  never  sub-- 
scribed  :  but  I  think  it  is  in  the  main,  a  very  excellent  composition. 
Which  I  shall  therefore  cheerfully  endeavour  to  defend,  so  far  as  I 
conceive  it  is  grounded  on  clear  Scripture. 

But  I  would  tirst  observe  in  general,  with  Dr.  Jennings,  that  there 
are  two  kinds  of  texts  in  the  ensuing  collection  :  some  that  directly 
prove,  others  that  properly  illustrate  the  doctrine  of  original  sin.  And 
there  are  so  many,  in  which  it  is  either  directly  spoken  of,  or  evi- 
dently implied,  that  the  author  might  well  have  spared  his  observation, 


VAKT    II.    §    2.]  OBIGI^'AL  SliS'.  2  IS 

'*  The  Scripture  speaks  ver}'-  sparingly  of  the  consequences  of  Adam's 
sin  upon  us,  because  as  these  are  freely  reversed  to  mankind  bj 
Christ,  we  are  not  so  much  concerned  to  know  them."  (p.  30.)  Tlie 
fact  here  affirmed  is  equally  true  with  the  reason  assigned  for  it. 

2.  The  first  proposition  in  the  Catechism,  which  relates  to  original 
sin  is  this  : 

"  The  covenant  being  made  with  Adam  as  a  public  person,  not 
for  himself  only,  but  for  his  posterity,  all  mankind  descending  from 
him  by  ordinary  generation,  sinned  Avith  him,  and  fell  with  him  in 
that  first  transgression."  (p.  91,  92.) 

Acts  xvii.  26,  "  God  hath  made  of  one  blood  all  nations  of  men." 
1  believe  Dr.  Jennings'  remark  here  will  suffice. 

'<  This  is  quoted  to  prove,  that  all  mankind  descend  from  Adam. 
But  Dr.  Taylor  adds,  "  That  is,  hath  made  all  the  nations  of  the 
world  of  one  spirit,  endovv^ed  with  the  same  faculties."  And  so  they 
might  have  been,  if  all  men  had  been  created  singly  and  separately, 
just  as  Adam  was :  but  they  could  not  then,  with  any  propriety  of 
language,  have  been  said  to  be  of  one  blood.  This  scripture  therefore 
is  very  pertinently  quoted  to  prove  what  it  is  brought  for.  That 
*  Adam  was  a  public  person,  including  all  his  posterity,  and  conse- 
quently, that  all  mankind  descending  from  him  by  ordinary  genera- 
tion, sinned  in  him,  and  fell  with  him  in  his  first  transgression,'  the 
assembly  have  proved  very  methodically  and  substantially :  first, 
from  Gen,  ii.  16,  17,  where  death  is  threatened  to  Adam  in  case  of 
his  sinning :  then  from  Rom.  v.  12 — 20,  and  1  Cor.  xv.  21,  22,  where 
we  are  expressly  told,  that  all  men  die  in  Mam,  and  that  '  by  his 
offence,  judgment  is  come  upon  all  men  to  condemnation.'  (Vindi- 
cation, p.  49,  &c.) 

Prop.  "  All  mankind  sinned  in  him,  and  fell  with  him  in  that  first 
transgression  :"  which  thev  prove  by  Gen.  ii.  16,  17,  compared  with 
Rom.  V.  12.  20,  (p.  93,  94.) 

On  this  you  remark,  "  The  threatening,  '  Thou  shalt  surely  die,'  is 
addressed  to  Adam  personally.  And  therefore  nothing  can  be  con- 
cluded thence,  with  regard  to  Adam's  posterity."  (p.  94.)  Is  this  con- 
sequence good  1  Was  not  the  sentence  also  grounded  on  this  threat- 
ening, "  Unto  dust  thou  shalt  return,"  personally  directed  to  him  ? 
And  is  this  nothing  to  his  posterity?  Nay,  does  it  not  from  this  very 
consideration  appear,  that  all  his  posterity  were  concerned  in  that 
threatening,  because  they  are  all  partakers  of  the  death  which 
was  so  threatened  to  Adam  ? 

"  But  we  cannot  gather  from  Rqm,  v.  or  1  Cor.  xv.  That  al) 
mankind  sinned  in  Adam,  if  we  understand  sinned  as  distinguished 
from  suffering."  It  has  been  largely  proved  that  we  can  :  and  that 
sinning  must  necessarily  be  understood  there,  as  distinguished  from 
suffering. 

"  But  the  apostle  says,  The  offence  of  one  brought  death  into  the 
world  :  whereas  had  all  mankind  sinned  in  Adam  when  he  sinned, 
then  that  offence  would  not  have  been  the  otfenc-e  of  one,  but  of  mil- 


'220  THE    DOCTRITvE   OF  [pART    11.    §    2. 

lions."  (p.  95.)  It  might  be,  in  one  sense,  the  offence  of  millions,  and 
in  another,  the  offence  of  one. 

"  It  is  true,  Adam's  posterity  so  fell  with  him  in  that  first  transgres- 
sion, that  if  the  threatening  had  been  immediately  executed,  he  would 
have  had  no  posterity  at  all."  The  threatening  !  What  was  the 
threatening  to  them  ?  Did  not  you  assure  us,  in  the  very  last  page, 
"  The  threatening  is  addressed  to  Adam  personally  ;  and  therefore 
nothing  can  be  concluded  from  thence  with  regard  to  his  posterity?' 

And  here  you  say,  Their  very  "  existence  did  certainly  fall  under 
the  threatening  of  the  law,  and  into  the  hands  of  the  judge,  to  be  dis- 
posed of  as  he  should  think  fit  !"  "As  he  should  think  fit !"  Then 
he  might,  without  any  injustice,  have  deprived  them  of  all  blessings  : 
of  being  itself,  the  only  possible  ground  of  all !  And  this,  for  the  sin 
of  another. 

You  close  the  article  thus.  "  We  cannot  from  those  passages 
conclude,  that  mankind,  by  Adam's  offence,  incurred  any  evil  but 
temporal  death."     Just  the  contrary  has  been  shown  at  large. 

3.  Their  second  proposition  is,  "The  fall  brought  mankind  into  a 
state  of  sin  and  misery."  (p.  96.) 

To  prove  this,  they, cite,  Rom.  v.  12,  a  proof  which  all  the  art  of 
man  cannot  evade  :  and  Rom.  iii.  23,  '  All  have  shmed,  and  come 
short  of  the  glory  of  God.'  "  But  this,"  you  say,  "  means  only,  Jews 
as  well  as  Gentiles,  men  of  all  nations  have  sinned."  (p.  97.)  Nay, 
it  is  most  certain,  as  Dr.  Jennings  obser\es,  that  he  "  means  all  men 
of  all  nations  :  or  he  means  nothing  to  the  purpose  of  his  conclusion 
and  his  inferences,  ver.  10,  20,  21,  22,  (Vind.  p.  50,  &c.)  The  apos- 
tle concludes,  froin  the  view  he  had  given  before  of  the  universal 
corruption  of  mankind.  That  'every  mouth  must  be  stopped,  and  all 
the  world  become  guilty  before  God,'  (ver.  19.)  From  whence  he 
draws  two  inferences,  1.  '  Therefore  by  the  works  of  the  law  there 
shall  no  flesh  be  justified.'  2.  The  only  way  of  justification  for  all 
sinners  is,  '  By  faith  in  Jesus  Christ.'  'For  there  is  no  difference,' 
as  to  the  way  of  justification  ;  'for  all  have  sinned  and  come  short  of 
the  glory  of  God.'  And  therefore  whoever  they  are  whom  Dr.  Taylor 
excludes  from  this  all,  {all  have  sinned,)  he  must  likewise  exclude 
from  having  any  need  of  justification  by  Christ." 

Be  this  as  it  may,  it  is  certain,  1.  That  mankind  are  now  in  a 
state  of  sin  and  suffering.  2.  That  they  have  been  so  in  all  ages, 
nearly  from  the  time  that  Adam  fell.  Now  if  his  fall  did  not  bring 
them  into  that  state,  I  would  be  glad  to  know,  what  did  ? 

4.  The  third  proposition  is,  "  Sin  is  any  want  of  conformity  to, 
or  transgression  of  the  law  of  God,  given  as  a  rule  to  the  reasonable 
creature."  "  This,"  you  say,  "  has  no  immediate  relation  to  our 
present  design."  (p.  98.)  But  it  had  to  their's:  which  was  to  illus- 
trate the  preceding  assertion,  "  That  the  fall  of  Adam  brought 
mankind  into  a  state  of  sin,"  in  both  these  senses  of  the  word. 

Ji.  Their  fourth  proposition  is,  "The  sinfulness  of  that  state  into 
xyhich  man  fell,  consists  in  the  guilt  of  Adam's  first  sin,  the  want  of 
that  righteousness  wherein  he  was  created,  and  the  corruption  ci 


^A&T  II.  §  2.]  ORIGINAL  SIN.  22 i 

his  nature,  whereby  he  is  utterly  indisposed,  disabled,  and  made  op- 
jiosite  to  all  that  is  spiritually  good,  and  wholly  inclined  to  evil,  and 
that  continually,  which  is  commonly  called  Original  Sin,  and  from 
which  do  proceed  all  actual  transgressions." 

On  the  first  article  of  this  you  say,  "  Adam's  first  sin  was  at- 
tended with  consequences  which  affect  all  his  posterity.  But  we 
could  not  on  account  of  his  sin,  become  obnoxious  to  punishment." 
''p.  99.)  By  punishment  I  mean  evil,  suffered  on  account  of  sin. 
And  are  we  not  obnoxious  to  any  evil,  on  account  of  Adam's  sin  ? 

To  prove  the  rest  of  the  proposition,  they  cite  first,  Rom.  iii.  10 
— 20.  On  which  you  remark,  "The  apostle  is  here  speaking  of 
Jews  and  Gentiles,  not  in  a  personal  but  in  a  national  capacity. 
The  mouth,  says  he,  of  all  sorts  of  people,  is  stopped,  and  both  Jews 
and  Gentiles  are  brought  in  guilty ;  for  I  have  proved,  that  there 
are  transgressors  among  the  Jews,  as  well  as  among  the  Gentiles." 
(p.  102. )  Not  at  all.  If  he  proved  no  more  than  this,  not  one  per- 
son would  '  become  guilty  before  God.'  Not  one  mouth  of  Jew  or 
Gentile  would  be  stopped,  by  showing,  "  There  were  Jewish  as  well 
as  /fca^Aew  transgressors." 

I  proceed  to  your  Observations. 

"  Obs.  1.  In  this  whole  section  there  is  not  one  word  of  Adam.^' 
There  is  enough  in  the  next  chapter  but  one.  The  apostle  firsi  de- 
scribes the  effect,  and  afterward  points  out  the  cause. 

"  Obs.  2.  He  is  here  speal^ing,  not  of  all  men,  but  of  the  Jews  : 
of  those  alone  who  were  under  the  law,  (ver.  19,)  and  proving  from 
their  own  writings,  that  there  were  great  corruptions,  among  theni 
as  well  as  other  people."  (p.  103.) 

He  is  speaking  of  them  chiefly,  but  not  of  them  only,  as  appears 
from  the  9th  verse,  '  We  have  before  proved  both  Jews  and  Gentiles, 
that  they  are  all  under  sin  :  As  it  is  written,  there  is  none  righteous,* 
(neither  among  the  Jews  nor  Gentiles,)  no,  not  one.  Does  this  re- 
spect them,  in  their  national  only,  not  personal  capacity  1  Does  it 
j)rove  no  more  than,  "  That  there  were  great  corruptions  among  the 
Jews,  as  well  as  other  jieople  ?" 

"  Obs.  3.  The  section  consists  of  several  quotations  out  of  the 
Old  Testament ;  but,  1.  None  of  them,  taken  separately,  speaks  of 
any  depravity  of  nature,  but  of  habits  of  wickedness,  which  men  had 
themselves  contracted."  (p.  103.)  They  do  speak  of  habits  which 
men  had  contracted  themselves  :  but  do  they  speak  of  these  only  ? 
The  way  to  know  this  is,  not  to  "  take  them  separately;"  not  to  con- 
sider the  precise  meaning,  wherein  they  were  occasionally  spoken, 
by  David,  Solomon,  or  Isaiah  :  but  to  toJce  them  conjointly,  as  they 
are  here  put  together  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  to  form  the  character  of 
all  mankind. 

On  one  of  them,  "  separately  taken,"  you  say,  "  How  could  God 
*  look  down  from  heaven,  to  see  if  there  were  any  that  did  seek  God,' 
if  he  knew  all  mankind  were  naturally  disabled  from  seeking  him  1" 
Why  not,  if  whatever  they  were  hy  nature,  the  grace  of  God  was  more 

U2 


222  THE   DOCTRINE   OP  [pART  II.  §  2. 

or  less  given  to  all  ?  Though  they  were  wholly  inclined  to  all  evil  by 
nature,  yet  by  grace  they  might  recover  all  goodness. 

You  affirm,  2.  "  In  none  of  these  places  does  God  speak  strictly 
of  every  individual  Jew  under  David  or  Solomon.  Very  many  were 
bad;  but  some  were  good."  (p.  104.)  They  were;  though  by 
grace,  not  nature.  But  among  all  those  of  whom  God  speaks  by 
St.  Paul,  '  there  was  none  good  or  righteous,  no,  not  one :'  every 
Individual,  whether  Jew  or  Heathen,  was  guilty  before  God. 

"  I  conclude,  therefore,  t .  That  none  of  those  texts  refer  to  any 
corruption  common  to  all  mankind."  (p.  106,  107.)  Perhaps  they 
do  not,  as  spoken  by  David;  but  they  do  as  spoken  by  St.  Paul. 
"  1  conclude,  2.  Such  a  general  corruption  as  admits  of  no  excep- 
tion, was  not  necessary  to  the  apostle's  argument."  Absolutely  ne- 
cessary :  had  it  not  included  every  individual  person,  m  person's 
mouth  would  have  been  stopped. 

These  texts  therefore  do  "  directly  and  certainly  prove,"  that  at 
the  time  when  the  apostle  wrote,  every  individual  Jew  and  Gentile, 
(except  only  those  who  were  saved  by  grace,)  'were  all  under  sin  ; 
That  there  was  none  of  them  righteous,  no,  not  one  ;  none  that  un- 
derstood or  that  sought  alter  God.'  This  was  the  fact  :  and  who 
can  find  out  a  more  rational  way  of  accounting  for  this  universal 
wickedness,  than  by  a  universal  corruption  of  our  nature,  derived 
from  our  first  parent  ? 

6.  The  next  proof  is,  Eph.  ii.  1,  2!*,  3,  <  And  you  hath  he  quick.^ 
ened,  who  were  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins :  wherein  in  time  past 
ye  walked,  according  to  the  course  of  this  world,  according  to  the 
prince  of  the  power  of  the  air,  the  spirit,  that  now  worketh  in  the 
children  of  disobedience  :  among  whom  also  we  all  had  our  conver- 
sation in  times  past,  in  the  desires  of  our  flesh,  fulfilling  the  desires 
of  the  flesh  and  of  the  mind  ;  and  were  by  nature  the  children  of 
wrath  even  as  others.'  (p.  108.) 

1.  "Nothing  is  here  intimated  of  any  ill  effects  of  Adam's  siii 
upon  us."     No  ]  Not  if  we  are  '  children  of  wrath  by  nature  ?' 

2.  "  The  Ephesians  were  Gentiles  converted  to  the  faith."  Yea^ 
and  Jews  also.  In  this  very  passage  die  apostle  speaks  of  both  : 
first,  the  Gentile,  then  the  Jewish  converts.  • 

3.  "  In  these  verses  he  is  describing  their  wretched  state,  while 
they  were  in  Gentile  darkness."— And  while  they  were  in  Jewish 
darkness  :  the  Jews  having  been  just  as  wicked  before  their  conver- 
sion as  the  Heathens.  Both  the  one  and  the  other  had  'walked' 
till  then  '  in  the  vanity  of  their  mind,  having  their  understanding 
darkened,'  being  equally  '  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins,'  equally 
'  alienated  from  the  life  of  God,  through  the  bUndness  of  their  heart:'' 
a  very  lively  description,  not  so  much  of  a  wicked  life,  as  of  an  evil 
nature. 

4.  *'  When  he  saith,  they  were  'dead  in  trespasses  and  sins,'  he 
speaks  of  their  personal  iniquities."  (p.  109.)  (True,  both  of /tear/ 
£ind  life.  I  must  make  some  variation  in  the  rest  of  your  paraphrase.) 
■  Wherein,'  saith  he,    '  in  times  past  ye,'   Heathens  particularly^. 


PART  II.  §  2..]  ORIGINAL   8I>-.  223 

'  walked  ;'  inwardly  and  outwardly,  '  according  to  the  prince  of  the 
power  of  the  air,  the  spirit  that  now  (still;  worketh  in  the  children 
of  disobedience  ;  among  whom  we  Jews  also  had  our  conversation,' 
being  as  '  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins'  as  you. 

*'  Therefore,  5.  When  he  adds,  '  Autl  were  by  nature  the  child- 
ren of  wrath  even  as  others,'  he  cannot  mean,  they  were  liable  to 
wrath,  by  that  nature  which  they  brought  into  the  world."  (p.  110.) 
Why  not  ?  This  does  not  follow  from  any  thing  you  have  said  yet. 
Let  us  see  how  you  prove  it  now.  "  This  nature  is  no  other  than 
God's  own  work.  The  nature  of  every  man  comes  out  of  the  hands 
of  God."  The  same  may  be  said  of  those  who  are  still  '  dead  in 
trespasses  and  sins.'  Their  original  nature  came  from  God,  and 
was  no  other  than  God's  own  work.  Yet  the  present  corruption  of 
their  nature  came  not  from  God,  and  is  not  his  woik.  "  Conse- 
quently the  nature  of  every  person  when  brought  into  being,  is  just 
what  God  sees  lit  it  should  be."  This  is  true  of  the  original  nature 
of  mankind,  when  it  was  hrst  brought  into  being.  But  it  is  not  true 
of  o\xv present  corrupt  nature.  Tiiis  is  not  what  God  sees  fit  it  should 
be.  "  It  is  his  ,  ower  alone  that  forms  it."  Yes,  that  forms  us  men ; 
but  not,  that  forms  us  sinful  men.  "  To  say  the  nature  HE  gives, 
is  the  object  of  his  wraih,  is  little  less  than  blasphemy."  As  he  gave 
it,  it  is  not  the  objeci  of  his  wrath  ;  but  it  is,  as  it  is  defiled  with  sin, 
*' Far  was  it  from  tne  apostle  to  depreciate  our  nature."  True, 
our  original  nature.  But  never  did  man  more  deeply  depreciate  our 
present,  corrupt  nature.  "  His  intent  is,  to  show  the  Ephesians,  they 
were  children  of  wrath,  through  the  sins  in  which  they  walked." 
Yea,  and  through  '  the  desires  of  the  flesh  and  the  mind,'  mentioned 
immediately  before  :  '  through  the  vanity  of  their  mind,'  through 
'  the  blindness  of  their  hearts,  past  feeling,  alienated  from  the  life  of 
God.'  Is  he  "not  here  speaking  of  their  nature,  but  of  the  vicious 
course  of  life  they  had  led  V  (p.  111.)  "He  well  understood  the 
worth  of  the  human  nature." — He  did,  both  in  its  original,  and  in 
its  present  state. — "  And  elsewhere  shows,  it  was  endowed,  even  in 
the  Heathens,  with  light  and  power  sufficient  to  know  God,  and 
obey  his  Avill."  In  what  Heathens,  in  Europe,  Asia,  Africa,  or 
America,  is  nature  now  endowed  with  this  light  and  power  ]  I  have 
never  found  it  in  any  Heathen  yet,  and  I  have  conversed  with  many, 
of  various  nations.  On  the  contrary,  1  have  found,  one  and  all, 
deeply  ignorant  of  the  very  end  of  their  existence.  All  of  them 
have  confirmed  what  a  Heathen  Meeko  (or  chief)  told  me  many 
years  ago,  "  He  that  sitteth  in  heaven  knoweth  why  he  made  man  : 
!)ut  we  know  nothing." 

"  But  St.  Paul  says,  '  When  the  Gentiles,  which  have  not  the  law, 
do  by  nature  the  things  contained  in  the  law,  they  are  a  law  to  them- 
selves.' (Rom.  i.  19.  21.)  This  supposes,  they  might  have  done 
them  by  nature,  or  their  natural  powers."  But  how  does  it  appear, 
that  by  nature,  here  means,  by  their  mere  natural  powers  ?  It  is  cer- 
tain, they  had  not  the  written  law.  But  had  they  no  supernatural  as-'- 
distance  ?    Is  it  uot  one  God  who  works  in  us  aud  iu  them,  both  te 


:224  THE  doctrine  of  [part  n.  §  2r 

will  and  to  do  ?     They  who  by  this  help  do  the  things  contained  in 
the  law,  we  grant  "  are  not  the  objects  of  God's  wrath." 

"  Again,  he  affirms,  the  Gentiles  had  light  suiBcient  to  have  seen 
God's  eternal  power  and  godhead."  They  had  ;  but  how  does  it 
appear,  that  this  was  the  merely  natural  light  of  their  own  unassisted 
reason  1  If  they  had  assistance  from  God,  and  did  not  use  it,  they 
were  equally  without  excuse.  "  Nay,  if  their  nature  was  corrupt, 
and  therefore  they  did  not  glorify  God,  they  had  a  fair  excuse."  (p. 
112.)  True,  if  God  had  not  offered  them  grace  to  balance  the  cor- 
ruption of  nature-  But  if  he  did,  they  are  still  without  excuse  :  be- 
cause they  might  have  conquered  that  corruption,  and  would  not. 
Therefore  we  are  not  "obliged  to  seek  any  other  sense  of  the  phrase, 
by  nature,  than  by  the  nature  we  bring  into  the  world." 

However,  you  think  you  have  found  another.  "By  nature  may 
signify  really  and  truly.  Thus  St.  Paul  calls  Timothy  yv^r/ej  nxvav, 
his  own  genuine  son  in  the  faith  :  not  to  signify  he  was  the  child  of 
the  apostle,  but  that  he  was  a  real  imitator  of  his  faith.  In  like  man- 
ner he  calls  the  Ephesians  <pv<s-£i  reMu.^  genuine  children  of  ivrath  : 
not  to  signify  they  were  related  to  wrath  by  their  natural  birth  ;  but 
by  their  sin  and  disobedience."  (p.  113.) 

This  is  simply  begging  the  question,  without  so  much  as  a  shadow 
of  proof.  For  the  Greek  word  in  one  text  b  not  the  same,  nor  any 
way  related  to  that  in  the  other.  Nor  is  there  the  least  resemblance 
between  the  apostle's  calling  Timothy  '  his  own  son  in  the  faith,'  and 
his  affirming  that  even  those  who  are  now  '  saved  by  grace,'  were 
*  by  nature  children  of  wrath.* 

To  add  therefore,  "  Not  as  they  came  under  condemnation  by  the 
offence  of  Adam,"  is  only  begging  the  question  once  more  :  thougli 
it  is  true,  they  had  afterwards  inflamed  their  account,  by  "  their  own 
trespasses  and  sins." 

You  conclude,  "  By  nature  therefore  may  be  a  metaphorical  ex- 
pression, and  consequently  is  not  intended,"  {May  be  in  the  premiss, 
is  not  in  the  conclusion  !  A  way  of  arguing  you  frequently  use) 
'« to  signify  nature  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word  ;  but  to  mean, 
they  were  really  and  truly  children  of  wrath."  (p.  114.)  But  where 
is  the  proof ':  Till  this  is  produced,  I  must  still  believe,  with  the 
Christian  church  in  all  ages,  that  all  men  are  '  children  of  wrath  by 
nature,'  in  the  plain,  proper  sense  of  the  word. 

7.  The  next  proof  is  Rom.  v.  6,  '  While  we  were  yet  without 
strength,  in  due  time  Christ  died  for  the  ungodly.'  You  answer,  1 . 
•'•  The  apostle  is  here  speaking,  not  of  mankind  in  general,  but  of  the 
Gentiles  only,  as  appears  by  the  whole  thread  of  his  discourse  from 
(he  beginning  of  the  epistle."  (p.  115.)  From  the  beginning  of  the 
epistle  to  the  6th  verse  of  the  5th  chapter,  is  the  apostle  speaking  of 
the  Gentiles  only  ?  Otherwise  it  cannot  appear  "by  the  whole  thread 
of  his  discourse  from  the  beginning  of  the  epistle."  "  But  it  appears 
especially  from  chap.  iii.  ver.  9.  What  then  ?  Are  we  Jews  better 
than  they  Gentiles  ?"    Nay,  from  that  very  verse  he  spealcs  chiefly 


PAKT  11.    §  2.j  ORIGINAL  SIN.  22d 

of  the  Jews.     And  you  yourself  a  few  pages  ago,  roundly  affirmed, 
"that  he  there  spoke  of  the  Jews  only."  (p.  102,  &.c.) 

And  will  you  affirm,  that  in  the  4th  chapter  likewise  "  he  is  speak-* 
ing  of  the'  Gentiles  only  1  Is  it  not  rnanifest,  that  he  does  not  speak 
of  them  at  all,  in  a  considerable  part  of  that  chapter  ?  How  then 
does  it  appear,  by  "  the  whole  thread  of  his  discourse  from  the  be- 
ginning  of  the  epistle,  that  he  is  here  speaking  not  of  mankind  in 
general,  but  of  the  Gentiles  onlyl" 

However,  you  boldly  go  on,  "  Having  established  the  point,  that 
the  Gentiles  have  as  good  a  title  to  God's  favour  as  the  Jews."  (p. 
116.) — How  ?  Is  thi!5  the  only,  or  the  chief  point  which  St.  Paul 
establishes  in  the  fourth  chapter  ?  Is  not  his  main  point  throughout 
that  chapter  to  prove,  that  both  Jews  and  Gentiles  were  justified  by 
faith?  Or,  is  he  "speaking  this,  not  of  mankind  in  general,  but  of 
the  Gentiles  on/j/ .?  He  proceeds,  (chap.  v.  1,)  'Therefore  being 
justified  by  faith,  we  Gentiles  have  peace  with  God.' "  In  the  same 
manner  you  thrust  in  the  word  Gentiles  into  each  of  the  following 
verses.  Had  then  the  Gentiles  only  peace  with  God  ?  You  might 
with  more  colour  have  inserted  Jews  in  every  verse.  For  of  them 
chiefly  the  apostle  had  been  speaking.  To  say  that  "  he  principally 
speaks  of  and  to  the  Gentiles,  to  the  end  of  the  6th  chapter,"  (p. 
117,)  is  aaoiher  assertion  which  .cannot  be  proved.  It  is  therefore 
by  no  means  true,  that  "  he  is  in  this  verse  speaking  of  the  Gentiles, 
in  contradistinction  to  the  Jews." 

You  atfirm,  2.  "  By  the  same  argument,  he  here  considers  the 
Gentiles  only  in  a  body,  as  distinguished  from  the  body  of  the  Jews, 
For  so  he  does  all  along  in  the  four  first  chapters."  No,  not  in  one 
of  them.  If  he  had,  the  mouth  of  no  one  individual  person  had  been 
stopped.  On  the  contrary,  he  speaks  both  here  and  all  along  of  every 
individual,  that  every  one  might  believe  in  him,  who  died  for  every 
one  of  the  ungodly. 

You  atBrm,  3.  "  In  this  verse  he  describes  the  condition  of  the 
converted  Gentiles  when  in  their  Heathen  state,  in  which  they  were 
without  strength,  unable  to  recover  themselves  ;  they  were  ungodl}", 
yea  sinners,  and  enemies  to  God."  (p.  118.)  And  were  not  the  un- 
co)iverted  Jews  also  sinners  and  enemies  to  God,  ungodly,  and  without 
strength  to  recover  themselves  ]  These  four  characters  therefore  arc 
no  j)roof  at  all,  "  that  the  Gentiles  only  are  here  spoken  of." 

"  Their  sin,  and  enmity,  and  ungodliness,  consisted  in  their  wick^ 
ed  works."  Primarily  m  their  wicked  tempers.  But  how  came  all 
men,  Jews  and  Gentiles,  to  have  those  wicked  tempers,  and  to  walk 
in  those  wicked  works  ?  How  came  they  all,  till  converted,  to  bo 
dead  in  sin,  and  without  strength  to  recover  from  it  ?  Unless  in  Mam 
all  died,  in  a  deeper  sense  than  you  are  willing  to  allow. 

You  sum  up  your  argument  thus  :  "  The  apostle  is  not  speaking 
here  of  all  mankind's  being  corrupted  in  Adam,  but  of  the  Gentiles 
being  corrupted  by  the  idolatry  and  wickedness  into  which  they  had 
plunged  themselves,  and  out  of  which  they  were  unable  to  recovei' 
themselves,  without  the  extraordinarv  interposal  of  divine  grace." 
(p.  120.) 


226  THiE   DOCTRINE    OF  [PART  II.    §  2^. 

If  this  was  the  case  of  the  Heathens  only,  then  the  Jews  were 
not  loithout  strength,  but  were  able  to  recover  themselves  from  then' 
wickedness,  without  any  such  interposal.  But  with  regard  to  the 
Heathens  I  ask,  1.  Was  this  the  state  of  all  the  Heathen  nations,  or 
of  some  only  1  2.  If  of  some  only,  which  were  they  that  were  not 
corrupted  ?  3.  If  it  was  the  state  of  all  Heathen  nations,  how  came 
it  to  be  so  ?  How  was  it,  that  there  was  not  one  uncorrupted  nation 
on  earth  1  4.  How  could  any  Heathen  nation  be  in  this  state  1 
fVithout  strength  1  Unable  to  recover  themselves  from  sin,  without  the 
extraordinary  interposal  of  the  divine  grace  ?  Since  you  are  clear 
in  this,  that  "  all  the  Gentiles  are  endowed  with  light  and  power,  suf- 
ficient to  know  God,  and  perform  obedience  to  his  will  by  their  natu- 
ral powers  of  reason  and  understanding."  (p.  121.)  If  you  say, 
"  They  were  once  endowed  with  these  powers,  but  now  they  had 
cast  them  away :"  I  am  not  satisfied  still.  What,  did  all  nations 
cast  away  their  natural  powers  of  reason  and  understanding  ]  Surely 
not !  But  if  not,  how  came  they  all  to  plunge  themselves  into  this 
dreadful  corruption  1 

8.  Another  proof  is,  (Rom.  viii  7,  8.)  <  The  carnal  mind  is  en- 
mity against  God  :  for  it  is  not  subject  to  the  law  of  God,  neither 
indeed  can  be.  So  then  they  that  are  in  the  tiesh  cannot  please 
God.' 

On  this  you  observe,  1,  "  Here  is  not  one  word  of-Adam,  or  any 
consefj^uence  of  his  sin  upon  us." 

The  whole  passage  speaks  of  that  corruption  of  our  nature, 
which  is  the  consequence  of  Adam's  sin. 

The  plain  and  obvious  sense  of  it  is  this,  (ver.  3,)  '  What  the 
law  could  not  do,  in  that  it  was  wealc  through  the  flesh,'  (too  weak 
to  contend  with  our  corrupt  nature,)  God  hath  done :  '  sending 
his  own  Son,  he  hath  condemned'  that  '  sin'  which  was  in  our 
*  flesh  :'  hath  given  sentence  that  it  should  be  destroyed,  (ver.  4,) 
'  That  the  righteousness  of  the  law  might  be  fulfilled  in  us,  who 
walk  not  after  the  flesh,  but  after  the  Spirit :'  who  are  guided  in  all 
our  thoughts,  words,  and  actions,  not  by  corrupt  nature,  but  by  the 
Spirit  of  God.  (ver.  5.)  'They  that  are  after  the  flesh,'  who  are 
still  guided  by  corrupt  nature,  '  mind  the  things  of  the  flesh  :'  have 
their  thoughts  and  affections  fixed  on  such  things  as  gratify  corrupt 
nature:  'but  they  that  are  after  the  Spirit,'  who  are  under  his 
guidance,  '  mind  the  things  of  the  Spirit  :'  think  of,  rehsh,  love  the 
things,  which  the  Spirit  hath  revealed,  which  he  moves  us  to,  and 
promises  to  give  us.  (ver.  6.)  'For  to  be  carnally  minded,'  to 
'  mind  the  things  of  the  flesh,'  of  our  corrupt  nature,  '  is  death  :' 
the  sure  mark  of  spiritual  death,  and  the  way  to  death  everlasting. 
'  But  to  be  spiritually  minded,'  to  mind  the  things  of  the  Spirit,  *  is 
life  :'  the  sure  mark  of  spiritual  life,  and  the  way  to  life  everlasting  ; 
and  attended  with  the  peace  of  God,  and  peace  with  God,  which 
otherwise  can  have  no  place  :  (ver.  7.)  '  Because  the  carnal  mind,' 
the  mind,  taste,  inchnation,  the  whole  bias  of  our  evil  nature  '  is 
f  nmity  against  God.     For  it  is  not  subject  to  the  law  of  God,  neither 


PAET   II.    §   2.]  ORIGINAL  SIN.  22.11 

indeed  can  be  :'  being  as  opposite  thereto  as  bell  to  heaven,  (ver.  8.) 
*  So  then  they  that  are  in  the  flesh, — still  unrenewed  by  the  Spirit, 
still  following  the  bent  of  corrupt  nature,  <  cannot  please  God.* 
Every  man  now  may  see  whether  this  passage  does  not  strongly 
illustrate  the  depravity  of  our  nature. 

9.  The  last  proof  of  this  part  of  the  proposition,  is,  (Gen.  vi, 
5.)  '  God  saw  that  the  wickedness  of  man  was  great  in  the  earth, 
and  that  every  imagination  of  the  thoughts  of  his  heart  was  only 
evil  continually.'  And  below,  (ver,  11.)  'The  earth  was  corrupt 
before  God,  and  the  earth  was  filled  with  violence.'  (p.  122.) 

"  Mankind,"  you  say,  "  was  univeisally  debauched  into  lust  and 
sensuality,  rapine  and  violence."  And  how  came  this  universal 
mckedness,  if  all  mankind  were  quite  upright  by  nature  ?  You  an- 
swer, "They  had  corrupted  themselves;  so  the  text,  (ver.  12,) 
*A11  flesh  had  corrupted  his  way  upon  the  earth.'  "  This  expression 
does  not  necessarily  imply  any  more,  than  that  all  Jiesh,  all  men, 
were  corrupted.  But  taking  it  literally,  I  ask,  How  came  all  flesh  to 
corrupt  themselves  ?  Oh,  "  by  Seth's  posterity  intermarrying  with  the 
Cainites."  But  how  came  all  the  Cainites  to  corrupt  themselves  ? 
And  all  the  Sethites  to  follow,  not  reform  them  ?  If  the  balance  was 
even,  if  nature  leaned  neither  way,  there  ought  to  have  been  as 
many  good  as  bad  still :  and  the  Sethites  ought  to  have  reformed  a§ 
many  of  the  children  of  Cain,  as  the  Cainites  corrupted  of  the 
children  of  Seth.  How  came  it  then,  that  only  '  Noah  was  a  just 
man  V  And  does  one  good  man  amidst  a  world  of  the  ungodly, 
prove,  that  the  "  nature  of  mankhid  in  general  is  not  corrupted  ?" 
Or  rather  strongly  prove,  that  it  is  ?  It  does  not  prove,  that  Noah 
himself  was  not  naturally  inclined  to  evil ;  but  it  does,  that  the 
world  was. 

"  But  if  the  corruption  of  nature  was  the  reason  why  the  old 
world  was  ^lestroyed,  it  is  a  reason  for  the  destruction  of  the  world 
at  any  time."  (p.  123.)  This  alone  was  never  supposed  to  be  the 
teason  ;  but  their  actual  wickedness  added  thereto. 

You  add,  "  It  may  be  urged,  that  God  said,  '  I  will  not  again 
curse  the  ground  for  man's  sake :  for  the  imagination  of  man's 
heart  is  evil  from  his  youth.'  (Gen.  viii.  21.)  But  the  Hehreio  par- 
ticle o  sometimes  signifies  although.^*  That  does  not  prove,  that  it 
signifies  so  here.  But  what  if  it  does  ?  What  if  the  texts  be  ren- 
tlered.  Though  the  imagination  of  man's  heart  is  evil  from  his  youth  ? 
Even  thus  rendered,  it  implies  as  strongly  as  it  did  before,  that  man's 
heart  is  naturally  inclined  to  evil. 

The  Hebrew  word,  translated  youth,  (p.  124,)  is  always  applied 
to  childhqod  or  tender  age,  (Isa.  vii.  16,)  n^'J  signifies  a  little  child. 
And  none  of  the  texts  you  have  cited  prove  the  contrary.  Heman, 
the  author  of  the  88th  Psalm,  v/as  doubtless  afflicted  from  his  youth 
or  childhood.  The  Babylonians  (mentioned  xlvii.  12.)  may  well  be 
supposed  to  have  been  trained  up  in  the  way  of  their  lathers,  from 
their  earliest  childhood  :  and  the  plain  meaning  of  Jeremiah,  (ch. 
iii.  24,  25,)  '  Shame  hath  devoured  the  labour  of  our  fathers  from 


228  THE  DOCTRINE   OP  [PAKT   n.    §    £', 

our  3"Quth.'  *  We  lie  down  in  our  shame ;  for  we  have  sinned 
against  the  Lord  our  God,  we  and  our  fathers  from  our  youth,' 
is,  Ever  since  we  began  to  think  or  act,  we  have  gone  astray  from 
God. 

10.  The  preceding  texts  were  brought  to  prove  (and  they  do 
abundantly  prove  it)  that  our  nature  is  deeply  corrupted,  inclined 
to  evil,  and  disinclined  to  all  that  is  spiritually  good,  so  that  without 
Supernatural  grace,  we  can  neither  will  nor  do  what  is  pleasing  to 
Ood.  And  this  easily  accounts  for  the  wickedness  and  misery 
of  mankind,  in  all  ages  and  nations  :  whereby  experience  and 
reason  do  so  strongly  confirm  this  scriptural  doctrine  of  Original 
Sin. 

Yet  it  will  not  "  follow,  That  men  are  not  moral  agents.",  (p. 
125.)  If  you  ask,  "Why,  how  are  they  capable  of  performing 
duty  1"  I  answer,  By  grace,  though  not  by  nature.  And  a  mea- 
sure of  this  is  given  to  all  men.  Nor  does  it  follow,  "  That  we  can 
by  no  means  help  or  hinder  that  sin  which  is  natural  to  us."  Yes, 
we  can.  Anger,  for  instance,  is  natural  to  me:  yea,  irregular, 
unreasonable  anger.  I  am  naturally  inclined  to  this,  as  I  experience 
every  day.  Yet  /  can  help  it  by  the  grace  of  God ';  and  do  so  as 
long  as  I  watch  and  pray. 

•  Dr.  Jennings  answers  this  assertion  more  at  large,  "  If  sin  bt 
natural  then  it  is  necessary. ^^  (p.  125.)  If  by  sin  is  meant  the  cor- 
rupt bias  of  our  wills,  that  indeed  is  natural  to  us,  as  our  nature  is 
corrupted  by  the  fall :  but  not  as  it  came  originally  out  of  the  hand 
of  God.  Therefore  it  is  improperly  compared  to  the  appetites  of 
hunger  and  thirst,  which  might  be  in  our  original  nature.  Now  this 
bias  of  the  will  is  certainly  evil  and  sinful,  and  hateful  to  God  ; 
whether  we  have  contracted  it  ourselves,  or  whether  we  derive  it 
from  Adam,  m^kes  no  difference,  A  proud  or  passionate  temper 
is  evil,  Avhether  a  man  has  contracted  it  himself,  or  derii'ed  it  from 
his  parents.  Therefore  the  inference,  If  natural  and  (in  some  sense) 
necessarxj  then  no  sin,  does  by  no  means  hold. 

"  But  if  by  sin  be  meant  sinful  actions,  to  which  this  corrupt  bias 
of  the  will  inclines  us  ;  it  remains  to  be  proved,  that  a  corrupt  bias 
of  the  will,  makes  the  actions  necessary  and  consequently  not  sin- 
ful. And,  indeed,  if  a  corrupt  bias  makes  sin  to  be  necessary,  and 
consequently  to  be  no  sin,  then  the  more  any  man  is  inclined  to  sin, 
the  less  sin  he  can  comiiit ;  and  as  that  corrupt  bias  grows 
stronger,  his  actual  sinning  becomes  more  necessary :  and  so  the  man 
instead  of  growing  more  wicked  grows  more  innocent."  (Vind.  p. 
68,  &c.) 

11.  That  this  doctrine  has  been  long  "  held  in  the  church  of 
Rome,"  (p.  126.)  is  true.  But  so  it  has  in  the  Greek  church  also  : 
and  so  far  as  we  can  learn,  in  every  church  under  heaven,  at  least 
from  the  time  that  God  spake  by  Moses. 

From  this  infection  of  our  nature,  (call  it  original  sin,  or  what 
you  please,)  spring  many,  if  not  all,  actual  sins.  And  this  St.  James 
(i,  14.)  plainly  intimates,  even  aecording  to  your  paraphrase  on  liisi 


TART  n.  §  2.]  ORIGINAL  SIX.  220 

words,  "  '  Every  man  is  tempted,'  is  overcome  by  temptation  '  when 
he  is  drawn  away  by  his  own  lust,'  his  own  irregular  desire  ;  where 
the  apostle  charges  the  wickedness  of  men  on  its  proper  cause,  their 
own  lust."  Very  true.  And  irregular  desire  is  (not  so  much  a  fruit 
as  a)  part  of  original  sin.  For  to  say,  "  Eve  had  irregular  desires 
before  she  sinned,"  (p.  127.)  is  a  contradiction:  since  all  irregular 
desire  is  sin. 

12.  Another  proof,  that  actual  sins  spring /rorn  original  is,  (Matt. 
XV.  19.)  '  Out  of  the  heart  proceed  evil  thoughts,  murders,  adulte- 
ries, fornications,  thefts,  false-witness,  blasphemies.' 

"  But  what  has  this  text  to  do  with  Adam's  sin?"  It  has  much 
to  do  with  the  point  it  is  brought  to  prove  :  namely.  That  actual  sin 
proceeds  from  original,  evil  iporks  from  an  evil  heart.  Do  not  there- 
ibre  triumph  over  these  venerable  men  (as  you  have  done  again  and 
again)  because  a  text  cited  in  proof  of  one  clause  of  a  proposition, 
does  not  prove  the  whole. 

But  "  neither  of  those  texts  proves,  that  all  our  wickedness  pro- 
ceeds from  our  being  corrupted  by  Adam's  sin."  (p.  128.)  But 
they  both  prove  what  they  were  brought  to  prove,  that  all  outward 
wickedness  proceeds  from  inward  wickedness.  Those  pious  men 
therefore  did  not  mix  "  the  forgery  of  their  own  imagination  with 
the  truth  of  God." 

But  "  if  all  actual  transgressions  proceed  from  Adam's  sin,  then 
he  is  the  only  guilty  person  that  ever  lived.  For  if  his  sin  is  the 
cause  of  all  ours,  he  alone  is  chargeable  with  them." 

True  :  if  all  our  trangression  so  proceed  from  his  sin,  that  we 
cannot  possibly  avoid  them.  But  this  is  not  the  case  :  by  the  grace 
of  God,  we  may  *  cast  away  all  our  transgressions.'  Therefore  if 
we  do  not,  they  are  chargeable  on  ourselves.  We  may  live  :  but 
we  will  die. 

Well,  but  "  on  these  principles,  all  actual  sins  proceed  from 
Adam's  sin,  either  by  necessary  consequence  ;  or  through  our  own 
choice  ;  or  partly  by  one,  and  partly  by  the  other."  (p.  139.)  Yes, 
partly  by  one,  and  partly  by  the  other.  We  are  inclined  to  evil,  an- 
tecedently to  our  own  choice.  By  grace  we  may  conquer  this  in- 
clination, or  we  may  choose  to  follow  it,  and  so  commit  actual  sin. 

13.  Their  fifth  proposition  is,  "Original  sin  is  conveyed  from 
our  first  parents  to  their  posterity  by  natural  generation,  so  as  all 
that  proceed  from  them  in  that  way,  are  conceived  and  born  in  sin." 
(p.  130.) 

In  proof  of  this  they  urge,  (Psalm  li.  5.)  'Behold  I  was  shapen 
in  iniquity,  and  in  sin  did  my  mother  conceive  me.' 

On  this  you  observe,  "  The  word  which  we  translate  shapen,  sig- 
nifies to  bring  forth  or  bear.  So  here  it  means.  Behold  I  was  brought 
forth  or  born  in  iniquity."  (p.  131.) 

Suppose  it  does,  (which  is  not  plain  ;  for  you  cannot  infer  from 
its  meaning  so  sometimes,  that  it  means  so  here,)  what  have  you 
gained  ?  If  David  v/as  born  in  iniquity,  it  is  little  different  from  being 
shapen  therein. 

Vol.  9.~W 


;230  THE    DOCTRINE    OF  [PART  11,  §  2- 

That  the  Hebrew  word  does  not  always  mean  to  be  horn,  but 
rather  to  be  shapen,  formed,  or  made,  evidently  appears  from  Ps.  xc. 
2  ;  where  it  is  applied  to  the  formation  of  the  earth.  And  in  this 
very  text,  the  Seventy  render  it  by  67r>Ma-e»-  a  word  of  the  very  same 
import.  It  is  therefore  here  very  properly  rendered  shapen  ;  nor 
can  it  be  more  exactly  translated. 

But  "  the  word,  jrnn"  properly  signifies  warmed  me."  You  should 
say,  literally  signifies.  But  it  signifies  conceived  me,  nevertheless. 
And  so  it  is  taken,  Gen.  xxx.  38,  39.  41,  &c.  xxxi.  10.  "Nay  it 
signifies  there  the  act  of  copulation.  So  several  translators  render 
it."  (p.  132,  133.)  And  several  render  it  otherwise.  So  this  does 
not  determine  the  point  either  way. 

It  must  therefore  be  determined  by. the  sense.  Now,  for  what 
end  did  Jacob  put  the  '  pilled  rods  before  the  cattle  ?'  That  the 
iambs  might  be  marked  as  the  rods  were.  And  when  is  it  that  fe- 
males of  any  kind  maj  k  their  young  1  Not  in  that  act :  But  some 
time  after,  when  the  lioetus  is  either  forming  or  actually  formed. 
Throw  a  plumb  or  a  pear  at  a  woman  before  conception,  and  it  will 
not  mark  the  foetus  at  all :  but  it  will,  if  thrown  while  she  is  con- 
ceiving, or  after  she  has  conceived,  as  we  see  in  a  thousand  in- 
stances. This  observation  justifies  our  translators  in  rendering  the 
word  by  conceiving  in  all  those  places. 

And  indeed  you  own,  "  David  could  not  apply  that  word  to  his 
mother,  in  the  sense  wherein  you  would  apply  it  to  the  cattle.''  You,, 
therefore,  affirm,  "  it  means  here,  to  nurse."  (p.  134.)  You  may  as 
well  say,  it  means,  to  roast.  You  have  as  mucli  authority  from  the 
Bible,  for  one  interpretation  as  for  the  other.  Produce,  if  you  can, 
one  single  text,  in  which  an'  signifies  to  nurse,  or  any  thing  like  it. 

You  stride  on.  1.  "The  verse  means.  In  sin  did  my  mother 
nurse  me  :  2.  That  is,  I  am  a  sinner  from  the  womb  :  3.  That  is,  I 
am  a  great  sinner :  4.  That  is,  I  have  contracted  strong  habits  of 
sin."  By  this  art  you  may  make  the  most  expressive  texts,  mean 
just  any  thing  or  nothing. 

"  So  Psl.  Iviii.  3,  '  The  wicked  are  estranged  from  the  womb  :  they 
go  astray  as  soon  as  they  are  born,  telling  lies.'  That  is,  my  unjust 
persecutors  in  Saul's  court  are  exceedingly  wicked."  If  this  was 
all  David  meant,  what  need  of  n;  are  alienated?  And  that  from 
the  bowels  of  their  mother  1  Nay,  but  he  means  as  he  speaks.  They 
^  are  alienated  from  the  life  of  God,'  from  the  time  of  their  coming 
into  the  world.  From  the  time  of  their  birth  they  '  know  not  the 
way  of  truth  :'  neither  can,  unless  they  are  '  born  of  God.' " 

You  cite  as  a  parallel  text,  "  '  Thou  wast  called  a  transgressor 
from  the  womb,'  that  is,  set  to  iniquity  by  prevailihg  habits  and  cus- 
toms." Nay,  the  plain  meaning  is,  the  Israehtes  in  general  had 
never  kept  God's  laws  since  they  came  into  the  world. 

Perhaps  the  phrase, /row  the  womb,  is  once  used  figuratively,  namely. 
Job  xxxi.  18.  But  it  is  manifest,  that  it  is  to  be  literally  taken,  Isa. 
slix.  1.  *  The  Lord  hath  called  me  from  the  Avomb,  from  the  bowels 


fXRT  11.  §  2.]  ORIGINAL   SIN.  231 

of  my  mother  hath  he  made  mention  of  my  name.'  For,  1 .  This 
whole  passage  relates  to  Christ ;  these  expressions  in  particular. 
2.  This  was  literally  fulfilled,  when  the  angel  was  sent  while  he  was 
yet  in  the  womb,  to  order  that  his  JVar>^e  should  be  called  Jesus, 
This  is  not  therefore  barely  "an  hyperbolical  form  of  aggravating 
sin;"  but  an  humble  confession  of  a  deep  and  weighty  truth,  whereof 
we  cannot  be  too  sensible. 

"  But  you  have  no  manner  of  ground  to  conclude  that  it  relateth 
to  Adam's  sin."  (p.  136.)  Whether  it  relates  to  Adam's  personal 
sin  or  not,  it  relates  to  a  corrupt  nature.  This  is  the  present  ques- 
tion ;  and  your  pulling  in  Adam's  sin,  only  tends  to  puzzle  the 
reader.  But  how  do  you  prove  (since  you  will  drag  this  in)  that  it 
does  not  relate  to  Adam's  sin  1 

Thus:  "1.  In  the  whole  Psalm  there  is  not  one  word  about 
Adam,  or  the  effects  of  his  sin  upon  us." 

Here,  as  usual,  you  blend  the  two  questions  together  ;  the  ready 
way  to  confound  an  unwary  reader.  But,  first,  to  the  first,  "  In  the 
whole  Psalm  there  is  not  one  word  about  Adam.  Therefore  it  re- 
lateth not  to  him."  Just  as  well  you  may  argue,  "  In  the  whole 
Psalm  there  is  not  one  word  about  Uriah.  Therefore  it  relateth  not 
to  him."  The  second  assertion,  "  There  is  not  one  word  of  the 
effects  of  his  sin,"  is  a  fair  begging  the  question. 

"  2.  The  Psalmist  is  here  charging  himself  with  his  own  sin." 
He  is ;  and  tracing  it  up  to  the  fountain. 

3.  "  But  according  to  our  version,  he  does  not  charge  himself 
with  his  sin,  but  some  other  person.  He  throws  the  whole  load  of 
sin  from  off"  himself  on  God  who  shaped  him,  and  his  mother  who 
conceived  him." 

What  you  say  might  have  had  weight,  if  he  had  offered  this  in  ex- 
cuse of  his  sin,  or  even  in  extetuiation  of  it.  But  does  he  do  this? 
Does  he  in  fact  "  throw  the  whole  blame,  or  any  part  of  it  from  ofi' 
himself]"  Just  the  reverse.  He  acknowledges  and  bewails  his  oicn 
total  iniquity :  not  to  excuse,  but  to  abase  himself  the  more  before 
God,  for  his  inicard  as  well  as  outicard  wickedness. 

And  yet  he  might,  in  perfect  consistency  with,  this  when  God  had 
caused  '  the  bones  which  had  been  broken  to  rejoice,'  cry  out,  'I 
will  praise  thee,  O  God:  for  I  am  fearfully  and  wonderfully  made :' 
yea,  and  repeat  all  that  follows  in  the  same  Psalm:  which  proves  so 
much  and  no  more,  that  every  Icetus  in  the  womb  is  formed  by  the 
power  and  wisdom  of  God.  Yet  does  it  not  follow,  that  the  sin  trans- 
mitted from  the  parent  "  must  be  attributed  to  God."  (p.  137.) 

"But  how  could  he  with  pleasure  reflect  upon  his  formation,  or 
praise  God  for  if?"  As  I  can  at  this  day  :  though  I  know  I  was  'con- 
ceived in  sin,'  and  'shapen  in  iniquity.'  But  'where  sin  abounds, 
grace  does  much  more  abound.'  I  lose  less  by  Adam  than  I  s:ain  by 
Christ. 

This  also  perfectly  consists  wkh  the  following  verse,  <  Behold  thou 
desirest  truth,'  or  it  is  thy  will  that  we  should  have  truth  '  in  the  in- 


'^32  THE   DOCTEIJJE   or  [l*ART   II.    §   £, 

ward  parts :'  thou  art  willing-  to  remove  all  that  <  iniquity  wherein  I 
was  shapen,'  to  '  give  me  a  clean  heart,  and  renew  a  right  spirit 
within  me.  And  in  the  hidden  part  thou  hast  made  me  to  know  wis- 
dom :'  thou  hast  '  shown  me  what  was  good.'  So  that  I  am  every 
way  without  excuse.     I  knew  thy  will  and  did  it  not. 

"But  it"  after  all  you  will  adhere  to  the  literal  sense  of  this  textj 
why  do  you  not  adhere  to  the  literal  sense  of  that  text,  '  this  is  my 
body,' and  believe  transubstantiationl"  (p.  138.)  For  those  very 
leasons  which  you  suggest:  1.  Because  it  is  gTossly  absurd  to  sup- 
pose that  Christ  speaks  of  Avhat  he  then  held  in  his  hands,  as  his  teal 
natural  body.  But  it  is  no  way  absurd  to  suppose  the  Psalmist  was 
conceived  in  sin.  2.  The  sense  of,  this  is  my  body,  may  be  clearly  ex- 
plained by  other  scriptures,  where  the  like  forms  of  speech  are  used. 
But  there  are  no  other  scriptures  where  the  like  forms  with  this  of 
David  are  used  in  any  other  sense.  3.  Transubstantiation  is  attend- 
ed with  consequences  hurtful  to  piety.  But  the  doctrine  of  Original 
Sin,  and  faith  grounded  thereon,  is  the  only  foundation  of  true  piety. 

14.  The  next  proof  is,  Job  xiv.  4,  "  Who  can  bring  a  clean  thing 
out  of  an  unclean  ?  Not  one.'  On  this  you  observe,  "Job  is  here 
speaking  of  the  weakness  of  our  nature,  not  with  regard  to  sin,  but 
to  the  shortness  and  afflictions  of  life."  (p.  139.)  Certainly,  with 
regard  both  to  the  one  and  the  other.  For  though  in  the  first  and 
second  verses,  he  mentions  the  shortness  and  troubles  of  life,  yeii 
even  these  aie  mentioned  with  a  manifest  regard  to  sin.  (p.  140.) 
This  appears  from  the  very  next  vei-se,  '  And  dost  thou  open  thy  eyes 
upon  such  a  one,'  to  punish  one  already  so  wretched?  'And  bring- 
est  me  into  judgment  with  thee,'  by  chastising  me  still  more  1 1t  then 
immediately  follows,  'Who  can  bring  a  clean  thing  out  of  an  un- 
clean 1  Not  one  :'  It  does  therefore  by  no  means  appear  that  f  Job 
is  here  speaking  only  with  regard  to  the  shortness  and  troubles  oi'" 
life." 

Part  of  the  following  verses  run  thus:  (ver.  16,17.)  <  Now  thou 
numberest  my  steps ;  dost  thou  not  watch  over  my  sin  ?  My  trans- 
gression is  sealed  up  in  a  bag,  and  thou  sowest  up  mine  iniquity/ 
Let  any  one  judge  then,  whether  Job  in  this  chapter  does  not  speak 
of  "  the  sinfulness  as  well  as  the  mortality  of  human  nature." 

Not  that  he  "  urges  his  natural  pvavity  as  a  reason  why  he  should 
not  be  brought  into  judgment."  (p.  141.)  No  more  than  David  urges 
his  being  '  shapen  in  wickridnfss,'  as  an  excuse  for  that  wickedness. 
Rather  Job  (as  well  as  David)  humbly  acknowledges  his  total  sin- 
fulness :  confessmg,  that  he  deserved  the  judgmenty  which  yet  he  ppays 
God  not  to  inllict. 

15.  Another  proof  is.  Job  xv.  14.  '  What  is  man  that  he  should  be 
clean,  and  he  that  is  born  of  a  woman  that  he  should  be  righteous  V 

On  this  you  observe,  "Born  of  a  woman  signifies  no  more  than  a 
man."  Often  it  does  not ;  but  here  it  is  emphatical.  "  The  phrase 
indeed  includes  frailty  and  imperfection."  (p.  142.)  How  can  thai 
be?  Was  Adam  made/ra«7  and  imperfect?  And  have  you  forgot  that 


PART  II.   §  2.J  ORIGINAL  SIN.  233 

every  man  is  now  horn  in  as  good  a  state  as  Adam  was  made  at  first  ? 
"  But  it  is  not  to  be  understood  as  the  reason,  why  man  is  unclean 
and  unrighteous."  From  the  placing  of  the  words  one  would  really 
judge  it  was  :  and  how  do  you  prove  it  is  not  1  Why,  "  Job  and  his 
friends  use  this  manner  of  speech,  in  other  places  of  this  book. 
<  Shall  mortal  man  be  more  just  than  God  ?  Shall  a  mmx  be  more  pure 
than  his  Maker?"  (Job  iv.  17.)  Nay,  this  is  not  the  manner  of  speech 
which  is  in  question;  so  you  are  here  quite  wide  of  the  mark.  "  How- 
ever that  is,  '  How  can  man  be  justified  with  God  ?  Or  how  can 
he  be  clean  that  is  born  of  a  won)ai.  ?"  (Job  xxv.  4.) 

And  does  not  this  point  at  original  sin  1  You  say,  No.  For  "  if 
Job  and  his  friends  had  known,  that  the  reason  of  our  uncleanness 
and  imperfection  was  our  receiving  a  corrupted  nature  from  Adam, 
they  ought  to  have  given  this  reason  of  it."  And  do  they  not,  in  the 
very  words  before  us  ']  You  say,  "  No  :  they  turn  our  thoughts  to  a 
quite  difterent  reason,  namely,  the  uncleanness  o^  the  best  of  crea- 
tures in  his  sight."  This  is  not  a  different  reason,  but  falls  in  with  the 
other:  and  the  natural  meaning  of  these  texts  is,  'How  can  he  be 
clean  that  is  born  of  a  woman,'  (Job  xxv.  4,)  and  so  conceived  and 
born  in  sin  ]  '  Behold,  even  to  the  moon,  and  it  shineth  not,'  com- 
pared with  God  :  '  yea,  the  stars  are  not  pure  in  his  sight  !'  How 
•■much  less  man  that  is  a  worm  ?'  In  how  much  higher  and  stricter  a 
sense  is  man  impure,  that  carries  about  with  him  his  mortality,  the 
testimony  of  that  unclean  nature  which  he  brought  with  him  into  the 
world  1 

'  Shall  mortal  man  be  more  just  than  God  !  Shall  a  man  be  more 
pure  than  his  Maker?  (Job  iv.  17.)  Shall  man  dare  to  arraign  the 
justice  of  God  1  To  say,  God  punishes  him  more  than  he  deserves^ 
*  Behold  he  puts  no  trust  in  his  servants,  and  his  angels  he  charged 
with  folly.'  (Job  iv.  18,  &,c.)  Many  of  these  left  their  first  estates  ; 
even  their  Avisdom  was  not  to  be  depended. on.  '  How  much  less  in 
them  that  dwell  in  houses  of  clay:'  whose  bodies,  liable  to  pain,  sick- 
ness, death,  are  standing  monuments  of  the  folly  and  wickedness 
which  are  deep  rooted  in  their  souls  1 

'  What  is  man,  that  he  should  be  clean,  and  he  which  is  born  of  a 
woman,  that  he  should  be  righteous  1  Behold  he  putteth  no  trust  in 
his  holy  ones  ;'  yea,  the  heavens,  'are  not  pure  in  his  sight.'  His  holy 
angels  have  fallen,  and  the  highest  creatures  are  not  pure  in  com- 
parison of  him.  '  How  much  more  abominable  and  filthy,'  in  the 
strictest  sense,  is  man,  every  man  born  into  the  world  1  '  Who  drink- 
cth  iniquity  like  water,'  (Job  xv.  15,  16,)  iniquity  of  every  kind,  so 
readily,  so  naturally,  as  being  so  thoroughly  agreeable  to  <  the  de- 
sires of  his  flesh,  and  of  his  mind  V 

You  conclude  the  head  thus,  "  Man  in  his  present  weak  and 
fleshly  state  cannot  be  clean  before  God."  Certainly,  as  clean  as 
the  moon  and  stars  at  least ;  if  he  be  as  he  was  first  created.  He 
was  '  made  but  a  little  lower  than  the  angels.'  Consequently  he 
was^  then  far  higher  and  more  pure,  than  these,  or  the  sun  itself,  or 
any  other  part  of  the  material  creation.     You  go  on,  "  Why  cannot 

W2 


i!34  HIE  DOCTRINE  6f  [part  II.  §2'. 

a  man  be  clean  before  God  1  Because  lie  is  conceived  and  born  in 
sin  1  No  such  thing.  But  because  if  the  purest  creatures  are  not 
pure  in  comparison  of  God,  much  less  a  being  subject  to  so  many 
infirmities  as  a  mortal  man."  Infirmities  !  What  then  ?  Do  innocent 
infirmities  make  a  man  unclean  before  God  ?  Do  labour,  pain,  bodily 
weakness,  or  Mortality,  make  us  filthy  and  abominable  ?  Surely  not. 
Neither  could  they  make  a  man  pure  from  sin,  less  pure  than  the 
moon  and  stars.  Nor  can  we  conceive  Adam  as  he  came  out  of  the 
hands  of  God,  to  have  been  in  any  sense  less  clean  than  these.  All 
these  texts  therefore  must  refer  to  that  sinful  impurity,  which  every 
man  brings  into  the  world. 

You  add,  "  Which  is  a  demonstration  to  me,  that  Job  and  his 
friends  were  wholly  strangers  to  this  doctrine."  A  demonstration  oi 
a  peculiar  kind  !   I  think  neither  mathematical  nor  logical. 

16.  The  last  proof  is  John  iii.  6,  '  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh 
is  flesh,  and  that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit.'  (p.  144.) 

*  "  Here  hyjiesk  Dr.  Taylor  understands  nothing  else,  but  the 
mere  parts  and  powers  oi  a  man  :  and  by  being  born  of  the  flesh,  the 
being  born  of  a  woman,  with  the  constitution  and  natural  powers  of  a 
man.  Now  let  us  suppose  that  human  nature  is  not  at  all  corrupted, 
and  let  us  try  what  sense  wo  can  make  of  other  scriptures,  where  the 
word  flesh  is  used  in  opposition  to  spirit,  as  it  is  here.  Rom.  viii.  1, 
*  There  is  no  condemnation  to  them  who  walk  not  after  the  flesh,  but 
after  the  Spirit ;'  that  is,  not  after  the  pure,  uncorrupted  constitution 
and  powers  of  man.  Again  ver.  8,  <  They  that  are  in  the  flesh  can- 
not please  God  ;'  that  is,  they  that  have  the  parts  and  powers  of  a 
man.  Again, '  If  ye  live  after  the  flesh,  ye  shall  die  :'  that  is,  if  ye  live 
suitably  to  the  constitution  and  powers  of  your  nature.  Once  more  : 
how  shall  we  understand  '  the  flesh  lusteth  against  the  spirit,  and  the 
spirit  against  the  flesh.'  (Gal.  v.  17.)  U  flesh  means  nothing  but  the 
pure  and  uncorrupted  powers  of  human  nature  1 

"  But  this  text,  John  iii.  3,  is,  according  to  Dr.  Taylor,  so  far  from 
implying  any  corruption  of  our  nature,  that  "  on  the  contrary  it  sup- 
poses we  have  a  nature  susceptible  of  the  best  habits,  and  capable  of 
being  born  of  the  spirit."  (p.  145.)  And  whoever  denied  itl  Who 
ever  supposed,  that  such  a  corruption  of  nature,  as  for  the  present 
disables  us  for  spiritual  good,  renders  us  incapable  of  being  born  of 
the  Spirit  ? 

"  But  if  natural  generation  is  the  mean  of  conveying  a  sinful  nature 
from  our  first  parents  to  their  posterity,  then  must  itself  be  a  sinful 
and  unlawful  thing."  I  deny  the  consequence.  You  may  transmit 
to  your  children  a  nature  tainted  with  sin,  and  yet  commit  no  sin  in  so 
doing. 

"  Again,  we  produce  one  another,  only  as  the  oak  produces  the 
acorn.  The  proper  production  of  a  child  is  from  God.  But  if  God 
produces  a  foetus,  which  has  sinful  dispositions,  he  produces  those 
dispositions  :"  (p.  146.)  Your  argument  proves  too  much.  It  would 

*  Vindication,  p.  78,  &c« 


PART  n.  §  2.]  0KIGINAL  SIN.  233 

prove  God  to  be  the  author  of  all  actual  (as  well  as  original)  shi. 
For  "  it  is  the  power  of  God  under  certain  laws  and  established 
rules,"  which  produces  not  only  the  fatus,  but  all  the  motion  in  the 
universe.  It  is  his  power  which  so  violently  expands  the  air,  on  the 
discharge  of  a  pistol  or  cannon.  It  is  the  same  which  produces  mus- 
cular motion,  and  the  circulation  of  all  the  juices  in  man.  But  does 
he  therefore  produce  adultery  or  murder  1  Is  he  the  cause  of  those 
sinful  motions  ?  He  is  the  cause  of  the  motion;  (as  he  is  of  the  fodtus,) 
of  the  sin  he  is  not.  Do  not  say,  This  is  too  fine  a  distinction  !  Fine 
as  it  is,  you  must  necessarily  allow  it.  Otherwise  you  make  God 
the  direct  author  of  all  the  sin  under  heaven.  To  apply  this  more 
directly  to  the  point.  God  does  produce  the  tbetus  of  man,  as  he 
does  of  trees,  empowering  the  one  and  the  other  to  propagate  each 
after  its  kind.  And  a  sinful  man  propagates  after  his  kind,  another 
sinful  man.  Yet  God  produces,  in  the  sense  above  mentioned,  the 
man,  but  not  the  sin. 

17.  Their  sixth  proposition  is,  "  The  fall  brought  upon  mankind 
the  loss  of  communion  with  God,  his  displeasure  and  curse,  so  as  we 
are  by  nature  children  of  wrath,  bondslaves  to  Satan,  and  justly  liable 
to  all  punishments,  in  this  world  and  that  which  is  to  come." 

In  proof  of  the  first  clause  of  this  proposition,  they  cite  Gen.  iii.,8. 
10.  24.  On  this  you  observe,  "  Adam  and  Eve  by  their  sin  did  for- 
feit communion  with  God.  Cut  God  did  not  take  the  forfeiture." 
(p.  147.)  Surely  he  did,  when  'they  were  afraid  and  hid  themselves 
irom  his  presence.'  "  But  afterward  they  had  frequent  communion 
with  him."     This  does  not  prove,  they  did  not  lose  it  before. 

"  But  their  posterity  did  nui.  Abel  had  communion  with  him,  and 
so  had  the  patriarchs  and  prophets.  And  so  have  we  at  this  day. 
So  that,  as  we  could  not  jusiiy  have  lost  this  communion  by  Adam's 
sin,  it  is  true,  in  fact,  that  we  have  not  lost  it.  We  still  have  '  fellow- 
ship with  the  Father  and  Son.'  (p.  148.) 

Could  we  not  justly,  by  Adam's  sin,  have  lost  our  very  existence  ? 
And  if  wehad  not  existed,  could  we  ha\  e  had  communion  with  God  1 
"But  we  have  not  lost  it  in  fact.  We  still  have  'fellowship  with 
the  Father  and  with  the  Son.' "  Who  have  ?  '- 11  men  born  into  the 
world  1  All  Jews,  and  Turks,  and  Heathens  1  Have  all  that  arc 
called  Christians  .'  Have  the  generality  of  Protestants  '  fellowship 
with  the  Father  and  the  Son  V  What  iellowship  ]  Just  as  much  as 
light  has  with  darkness,  as  much  as  Christ  has  with  Belial.  The 
bulk  of  mankind.  Christians  as  well  as  Heathens,  Protestants  as  well 
as  Papists,  are  at  this  day,  and  have  been  ever  since  they  were  born, 
'  without  God,'  uB^ioi,  litheists  in  the  world. 

We  need  not  therefore  say,  "  Their  fellowship  with  God,  is  owing 
to  his  mercy  through  a  Redeemer."  They  have  none  at  all :  no  fel- 
lowship with  thi  only  true  God,  and  with  Jesus  Christ  whom  he  hath 
sent.  Indeed  they  have  no  great  need  of  Jesus  Christ,  according  to 
yoiu'  account :  seeing  "  Jill  that  God's  grace  doth  for  us  in  Christ, 
to  repair  what  we  lost  in  Adam,  is  raising  us  up  at  the  last  day !" 
You  add,  "  And  therefore  communion  with  God,  is  either  the  same 


iSQ  THE   DOCTRINE  OF  [PART    II.  §  S. 

grace  which  was  vouchsafed  to  Adam,  contmued  to  us,"  (p.  149  ;)  (to 
every  man  born  into  the  world,  as  naturally  as  seeing  or  hearing  !) 
"  Or,  if  there  be  any  thing  extraordinary  in  it"  (which  you  judge  can 
hardly  be  allowed  !)  "  it  belongs  to  the  redundancy  of  grace,  which 
has  no  relation  to  any  thi-ig  we  lost  by  Adam."  That  the  whole  pas- 
sage has  relation  to  what  we  lost  in  Adam,  has  been  shown  already. 
But  what  conception  you  have  of  communion  with  God  is  easily  seen 
by  this  wonderful  account  of  it. 

"  However,  this  text  gives  no  intimation,  that  Adam's  posterity 
lost  communion  with  God  for  his  sin."  It  shows  that  Adam  did  so. 
And  all  his  posterity  has  done  the  same.  Whence  is  this,  unless  from 
his  sin  ] 

Ver.  24.  '  So  he  drove  out  the  man :  and  he  placed  at  the  east  of 
the  garden  of  Eden  cherubim  and  a  flaming  sword,  which  turned 
every  way,  to  keep  the  way  of  the  tree  of  life.' 

Although  God  is  equally  present  in  every  place,  yet  this  was  a 
clear  token,  that  man  had  not  now  that  near  communion  with  him, 
which  he  had  enjoyed  before  his  sin. 

18.  Prop.  "The  fall  brought  upon  mankind  God's  displeasure  and 
curse,  so  we  are  by  nature  the  children  of  wrath." 

f'  The  text  on  which  this  is  grounded,  Eph.  ii.  2,  3,  Ave  have  con- 
sidered before."  And  those  considerations  have  been  answered  at 
large,  (p.  150.)  You  add,  "  How  mankind  could  be  justly  brought 
imder  God's  displeasure  for  Adam's  sin.  we  cannot  understand.  On 
the  contrary,  we  do  understand,  it  is  unjust.  And  therefore,  unless 
our  understanding  or  perception  of  truth,  be  false,  it  must  be  unjust. 
But  understanding  must  be  the  same  in  all  beings,  as  far  as  they  do 
understand.  Therefore,  if  we  understand,  that  it  is  unjust,  God  un- 
derstands it  to  be  so  too."  (p.  151 .) 

Plausible  enough.  But  let  us  take  the  argument  in  pieces.  "  How 
mankind  could  he  justly  brought  under  God's  displeasure,  for  Adam's 
sin,  we  cannot  understand."  I  allov/  it.  I  cannot  understand,  that 
is,  clearly  or  fully  comprehend  the  deep  of  the  divine  judgment  there- 
in :  no  more  than  I  can,  how  the  whole  brute  creation  through  his  sin 
should  have  been  made  subject  to  canity,  and  should  groan  together, 
in  weakness,  in  various  pain,  in  death,  until  this  day.  "  On  the  con- 
trary, we  do  understand,  it  is  unjust."  I  do  not  understand,  it  is. 
It  is  quite  beyond  my  understanding.  It  is  a  depth  which  I  cannot 
iathom.  "  Therefore  unless  our  unders"tanding,  or  perception  of 
truth,  be  false,  it  must  be  unjust."  Here  lies  the  deceit.  You  shift 
the  terms,  and  place  as  equivalent  those  which  are  not  equivalent. 
Our  perception  of  truth  cannot  be  false  :  our  understanding  or  appre- 
hension of  things  may.  "  But  understanding  must  be  the  same  in  all 
beings."  Yes,  in  the  former  sense  of  the  word,  but  not  in  the  latter. 
"Therefore  if  we  understand  (apprehend)  it  is  unjust,  God  under- 
stands it  so  too."  Nay  verily  :  '  As  the  heavens  are  higher  than  the 
earth,  so  are  his  thoughts  higher  than  our  thoughts.' 

"  A^'hat  a  God  must  he  be,  who  can  curse  his  innocent  creature? 
before  they  have  a  being  !     Is  this  thy  God,  O  Christian  ?"     Bold 


Tart  ii.  §  2.]  original  sin.  237 

enough  !    So  Lord  B "  Moses's  God  your  God  ]"   He  Is  mine  : 

although  \\e  said,  Cursed  be  Canaan,  inckiding  his  posterity,  before 
they  had  a  being.  And  although  he  now  permits  millions  to  come 
into  a  world,  which  every  where  bears  the  marks  of  his  displeasure. 
And  he  permits  human  souls  to  exist  in  bodies,  which  are  {liow  we 
know  not,  but  the  fact  we  know)  conceived  and  born  in  sin,  by  reason 
whereof,  all  men  coming  into  the  world  are  children  of  wrath.  But 
he  has  provided  a  Saviour  for  them  all.  And  this  fully  acquits  both 
his  justice  and  mercy. 

19.  "  So  as  we  are  by  nature  bond-slaves  to  Satan,"  (2  Tim.  ii- 
26.)  And  that  they  may  recover  themselves  out  of  the  snare  of 
the  Devil,  who  are  'taken  captive  at  his  will.'  (p.  152.) 

But  you  say,  "  The  apostle  speaks  this  of  the  unconverted  Gen- 
tiles, who  were  slaves  to  Satan,  not  through  Adam,  but  through  their 
own  fault."  Both  one  and  the  other.  But  how  does  it  appear,  that 
he  speaks  this  of  the  Gentiles  only  ? 

Without  offering  at  any  proof  of  this,  you  go  on,  '  The  clause 
'  taken  captive  by  him,'  is  spoken,  not  of  the  Devil,  but  of  the  ser- 
vant of  the  Lord."  For  thus  the  place  should  be  rendered.  That 
they  may  wake  out  of  the  snare  of  the  Devil,  bf  ing  revived  by  him, 
that  is,  the  servant  of  the  Lord,  to  his,  that  is,  God's  will."  (p.  153.) 

Well,  the  proof  The  word  ^ayeju  signifies  to  revive  :  and  so  here, 
to  restore  men  to  life  and  salvation."  As  a  proof  of  this  sense  ot 
the  word,  you  cite  Luke  v.  10.  But  this  rather  proves  the  contraj-y. 
For  there  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  reviving.  We  read  in  the  verse 
before  of  the  'fishes  which  they  had  taken :'  alluding  to  which  'Jesus 
said  unto  Simon,  from  henceforth  thou  shalt  catch  men  :'  take  them 
captive  in  the  gospel  net.  Although  therefore  it  were  allowed, 
(which  cannot  be  done,)  that  his  related,  not  to  the  word  immediately 
preceding,  but  to  another  which  stands  three  verses  off,  yet  even  this 
would  avail  nothing  :  since  the  sense  which  you  impose  upon  iuy^ia, 
is  what  it  will  by  no  means  bear. 

You  say  indeed,  "  It  always  means,  to  take  alive,  or  save  alive.^^ 
(p.  154.)  It  does  mean  to  take  alive.  But  you  bring  no  one  au- 
thority to  prove,  that  it  ever  means,  to  save  alive.  It  therefore  "  suits 
the  Devil  and  his  snare"  admirably  well :  for  he  does  not  take  therein 
those  who  are  free  among  the  dead :  but  those  who  are  alive  in  a 
natural,  though  dead  in  a  spiritual  sense. 

"  But  however  this  be,  they  were  not  led  captive  through  Adam's 
r;in,  but  their  own  wickedness."  (p.  155.)  They  were  bondslaves  to 
Satan,  (which  was  the  point  to  be  proved,)  through  Adam's  sin,  and 
their  own  wickedness. 

"  Yea,  but  what  an  inconsistency  must  that  be  in  the  divine  dis- 
pensations and  in  the  Scriptuies,  if  it  can  be  made  appear  from  them, 
that  God  hath  for  no  fault  of  our's,  but  only  for  Adam's  one  sin,  put 
us  all  into  the  hands  of  the  Devil :  when  he  hath  been  in.  all  ages 
providing  means  to  preserve  or  rescue  mankind  from  him  ?"  (p.  156.) 
What  can  be  made  appear  from  the  Scriptures  is  this :  that  from 
tidam  sin  passed  upon  all  men :  that  hereby  all  men,  being  by  natura 


238  THE   DOCTRINE   OF  [PART  II.    §  2. 

dead  hi  sin,  cannot  of  themselves  resist  the  Devil :  and  that  conse- 
quently, all  who  w^ill  not  accept  of  help  from  God,  are  'taken  cap- 
tive by  Satan  at  his  will.'  And  there  is  no  inconsistency  between 
this  and  any  of  the  Divine  dispensations. 

"  Prop.  And  justly  liable  to  all  punishments  in  this  world,  and 
that  which  is  to  come." 

That  all  men  are  liable  to  these  for  Adam's  sin  alonef  I  do  not  as- 
sert :  but  they  are  so,  for  their  own  outward  and  inward  sins,  which 
through  their  own  fault,  spring  from  the  infection  of  their  nature. 
And  this,  I  think,  may  fairly  be  inferred  from  Rom.  vi.  23,  '  The 
wages  of  sin  is  death  :"  its  due  reward  :  death,  temporal,  spiritual, 
and  eternal.     God  grant,  we  may  never  feel  it  so  ! 

19.  You  conclude  this  part :  "I  cannot  see  that  we  have  ad- 
vanced one  step  farther  than  where  we  were  at  the  conclusion  of 
the  first  part,  namely.  That  the  consequences  of  Adam's  first  sin 
upon  us,  are  labour,  sorrow,  and  mortaliry,  and  no  other."  (p.  102.) 

The  contrary  to  this  having  been  so  largely  proved,  instead  of  re- 
peating those  proofs  over  again,  I  shall  close  this  part  with  that 
beautiful  description  of  the  present  state  of  man,  which  Mr.  Hervey 
gives  us  from  Mr.  Howe's  Living  Temple.  "Only,"  says  he, 
"  let  me  hint,  that  it  c -nsiders  the  human  soul  as  originally  '  a  habit- 
ation of  God  through  the  Spirit.' 

"  That  he  hath  withdrawn  himself  and  left  this  his  temple  deso- 
late, we  have  many  sad  and  plain  proofs  before  us.  The  stately 
ruins  are  visible  to  every  eye,  and  bear  in  their  front  (yet  extant,) 
this  doleful  inscription.  Here  God  once  dwelt.  Enough  appears  of 
the  admirable  structure  of  the  soul  of  man,  to  show  the  divine  pre- 
sence did  sometime  reside  in  it :  more  than  enough  of  vicious  de- 
formity to  proclaim  he  is  now  retired  and  gone.  The  lamps  are  ex- 
tinct, the  altar  overturned  ;  the  light  and  love  are  now  vanished, 
which  did  the  one  shine  with  so  heavenly  brightness,  the  other  burn 
with  so  pious  fervour.  Tne  golden  candlestick  is  displaced,  to  make 
room  for  the  throne  of  the  prince  of  darkness.  The  sacred  incense, 
which  sent  up  its  rich  perfumes,  is  exchanged  for  a  poisonous,  hellish 
vapour.  The  comely  order  of  this  house  is  all  turned  into  confu- 
sion :  the  beauties  of  holiness  into  noisome  impurities  :  the  house  of 
prayer  into  a  den  of  thieves.  Thieves  of  the  worst  kind  ;  for  every 
lust  is  a  thief,  and  every  theft  is  sacrilege.  The  noble  powers  which 
were  designed  and  dedicated  to  divine  contemplation  and  delight  in 
God,  are  alienated  to  the  service  of  the  most  despicable  idols,  and 
employed  in  the  vilest  embraces  :  to  behold  and  admire  lying  vani- 
ties, to  indulge  and  cherish  lust  and  wickedness. 

"  There  is  not  now  a  system,  an  entire  table  of  coherent  truths  to 
be  found,  or  a  frame  of  holiness,  but  some  shivered  parcels.  And 
if  any  with  great  toil  and  labour  apply  themselves,  to  draw  out  here 
one  piece,  and  there  another,  and  set  them  together  ;  they  serve  ra- 
ther to  show,  how  exquisite  the  divine  workmanship  was  in  the  ori' 
Q^inal  composition,  than  the  excellent  purposes  for  which  the  whole 
'iyas  at  first  designed.     Some  pieces  agree  and  own  one  another ; 


VAUT  II.    §  3.]  ORIGINAL  SIN.  23f^ 

but  how  soon  are  our  inquiries  nonplused  and  superseded  !  How 
many  attempts  have  been  made,  since  that  fearful  fall  and  ruin  ol 
this  fabric,  to  compose  again  the  truths  of  so  many  several  kinds  into 
their  distinct  orders,  and  make  up  frames  of  science  or  useful  know- 
ledge !  And  after  so  many  ages,  nothing  is  finished  in  any  kind. 
Sometimes  truths  are  misplaced ;  and  what  belongs  to  one  kind,  is 
transferred  to  another,  where  it  will  not  fitly  match :  sometimes 
falsehood  inserted,  which  shatters  or  distarbs  the  whole  frame.  And 
what  with  much  fruitless  pains  is  done  by  one  hand,  is  dashed  in 
pieces  by  another :  and  it  is  the  work  of  a  following  age,  to  sweep 
away  the  fine-spun  cobwebs  of  a  former.  And  those  truths  which 
are  of  greatest  use,  though  not  most  out  of  sight,  are  least  regarded  : 
their  tendency  and  design  are  overlooked,  or  they  are  so  loosened 
and  torn  off,  that  they  cannot  be  wrought  in,  so  as  to  take  hold  of 
the  soul,  but  hover  as  laint,  ineffectual  notions,  that  signify  nothing. 
"  Its  very  fundamental  powers  are  shaken  and  disjointed,  and  their 
order  toward  one  another  confounded  and  broken.  So  that  what  is 
judged  considerable  is  not  considered,  what  is  recommended  as  lovehj 
and  eligible  is  not  loved  and  chosen.  Yea,  '  the  truth  which  is  after 
godliness,'  is  not  so  much  believed  as  hated,  or  '  held  in  unright- 
^usness  ;"'  and  shines  with  too  feeble  a  light,  in  ihat  malignant  dark- 
ness, which  '  comprehends  it  not.'  You  come  amidst  all  this  confu- 
sion, into  the  ruined  palace  of  some  great  prince,  in  which  you  see, 
here  the  fragments  of  a  noble  pillar,  there  the  shattered  pieces  of 
some  curious  imagery,  and  all  lymg  neglected  and  useless,  among 
heaps  of  dirt.  He  that  invites  you  to  take  a  view  of  the  soul  of 
man,  gives  you  but  such  another  prospect,  and  doth  but  say  to  you. 
Behold  the  desolation  !  All  things  rude  and  waste.  So  that  should 
there  be  any  pretence  to  the  divine  presence,  it  might  be  said,  If 
God  he  here,  lohy  is  it  thus  ?  The  faded  glory,  the  darkness,  the  dis- 
order, the  impurity,  the  decayed  state  in  all  respects  of  this  temple, 
too  plainly  show,  The  Great  Inhabitant  is  gone .'" 

Newington,  Jan.  21. 

In  your  Third  Part,  you  propose,  first.  To  answer  some  objection^.' 
and  queries :  and  then  to  consider -the  connexion  of  the  doctrine  oi 
original  sin  with  other  parts  of  religion. 

"  Obj.  I.  Are  we  not  in  worse  moral  circumstances  than  Adam 
was  before  he  fell  ?  I  answer,  (p.  1 68,)  1 .  If  by  moral  circumstances 
you  mean  the  state  of  religion  and  virtue,  it  is  certain  the  greatest 
part  of  mankind  ever  were,  and  still  are  very  corrupt.  But  this  is 
not  the  fault  of  their  nature,  but  occasioned  by  the  abuse  of  it,  in 
prostituting  reason  to  appetite,  whereby,  in  process  of  time,  they 
have  sunk  themselves  into  the  most  lamentable  degrees  of  ignorance, 
superstition,  idolatry,  injustice,  debauchery." 

But  how  came  this  1  How  came  all  nations  thus  to  "  abuse  theh^ 
nature,"  thus  to  "  prostitute  reason  to  appetite  ?"  How  came  they 
all  to  sink  into  this  "  lamentable  ignorance,  superstition,  idolatry,  in- 
justice, debauchery  T'     How  came  it,  that  half  of  them,  at  least,  if 


£40  THE   DOCTRINE  OF  [PART  II.  §  3, 

their  nature  was  uncorrupt,  did  not  use  it  well  1  Submit  appetite  to 
reason,  and  rise,  while  the  other  sunk?  "Process  of  time"  does 
not  help  us  out  of  all.  For  if  it  made  the  one  half  of  mankind 
more  and  more  vicious,  it  ought  by  the  same  degrees  to  have  made 
the  other  half  more  and  more  virtuous.  If  men  were  no  more  in- 
clined to  one  side  than  the  other,  this  must  absolutely  have  been  the 
event.  Turn  and  wind  as  you  please,  you  will  never  be  able  to  get 
over  this.  You  will  never  account  for  this  fact,  that  the  bulk  of 
mankind  have,  in  all  ages,  "prostituted  their  reason  to  appetite," 
even  till  they  sunk  into  "lamentable  ignorance,  superstition,  idolatry, 
injustice,  and  debauchery  ;"  but  by  allowing  their  very  nature  to  be 
in  fault,  to  be  more  inclined  to  vice  than  virtue. 

"  But  if  we  have  all  a  corrupt  nature,  which  as  we  cannot,  so 
Ood  will  not  wholly  remove  in  this  life,  then  why  do  we  try  to  reform 
the  world  1"  Why  1  Because,  whether  the  corrupt  nature  be 
wholly  removed  or  not,  men  may  be  reformed  so  as  to  'cease  from 
evil,-  to  be  '  renewed  in  the  spirit  of  their  mind,  and  by  patient  con- 
tinuance in  well-doing,  to  seek,'  and  find,  <  glory,  and  honour,  and 
immortality.' 

"  I  answer,  2.  If  by  moral  circumstances  you  mean  provision  and 
means  for  spiritual  improvement,  those  given  us  through  Christ  are 
far  greater  than  Adam  had  before  he  sinned."  (p.  169.)  To  those 
who  believe  in  Christ  they  are.  But  above  four-fifths  of  the  world 
are  Mahometans  or  Pagans  still.  And  have  these  (immensely  the 
greater  part  of  mankind  :  to  say  nothing  of  Popish  nations)  greater 
provision  and  means  for  spiritual  improvement,  than  Adam  before  he 
sinned  1 

*'  But  if,  3.  by  moral  circumstances  you  mean  moral"  (rather  na- 
tural) "  abilities,  or  mental  powers,"  (a  consideration  quite  foreign 
to  the  question,)  "  I  answer,  The  Scriptures  no  where  compare  our 
faculties  with  Adam's.  Nor  know  I  how  we  can  judge,  but  by  com- 
paring the  actions  of  Adam  in  innocence  with  what  men  have  per- 
formed since."  (p.  170.) 

Yes,  we  can  judge  thus.  There  could  be  no  defect  in  Adam's 
understanding,  Avhen  he  came  first  out  of  the  hands  of  his  Creator, 
but  there  are  essential  defects  in  mine  and  yours,  and  every  man's 
whom  we  know. — Our  apprehension  is  indistinct,  our  judgment  false, 
our  reasoning  wrong,  in  a  thousand  instances.  So  it  always  was  : 
and  so  it  is  still,  after  all  the  care  we  can  possibly  take.  Therefore 
"  our  faculties  are  not  as  sound  and  fit  for  right  action,  as  Adam's 
were  before  he  sinned." 

"  But  any  man  of  common  understanding  might  have  dressed  and 
kept  the  garden  as  well  as  he."  I  can  neither  affirm  nor  deny  this. 
For  we  know  not  hpio  he  dressed  and  kept  it. 

"  Nor  doth  it  appear,  that  in  giving  names  to  all  the  creatures,  he 
showed  any  extraordinary  penetration  into  their  natures.  For  that 
the  names  he  gave  truly  expressed  the  several  qualities  of  them,  is  a 
mere  fiction,  without  any  foundation  in  Scripture-history,  or  the 
iipmes  of  animals  in  the  original  Hebrew."  (p.  171.) 


TAKT  II.  §  3.]  ORIGINAL  SIN.  241 

This  is  really  strange  !  That  any  man  of  learning  should  be  so 
hardy  as  to  atfirm  this,  after  the  numberless  instances  which  have 
been  produced  of  Hebrew  names,  expressing  the  most  essential  pro- 
perty of  each  animal. 

And  is  this  supposition  likewise  "without  any  foundation  in  Scri])- 
ture-history  r  What  is  that]  Gen.  ii.  19,  "^' And  the  Lord  God 
brought  every  beast  of  the  field,  and  every  fowl  of  the  air,  unto 
Adam,  to  see  what  he  would  call  them,'  to  make  proof  of  his  un- 
derstanding. '  And  whatsoever  Adam  called  every  living  creature, 
that  was  the  name  thereof.'  Now  whether  those  names  were  He- 
brew or  not,  (which  you  affect  to  doubt,)  can  it  be  supposed  that  God 
would  have  permitted  them  to  stand,  if  they  had  not  suited  the  na- 
ture of  each  creature  ?  It  is  bold  therefore  to  aflirm.  That  "  man} 
of  his  posterity  could  have  given  names  to  them  as  well  as  he  :  and 
that  therefore  this  is  not  a  proof,  that  he  had  any  capacity  superior 
to  us."  (p.  172.) 

You  proceed,  "Surely  his  eating  the  forbidden  fruit  is  no  evidence 
of  superior  abilities."  (p.  173.)  And  it  is  no  evidence  of  the  con- 
trary;  "seeing"  (as  you  yourself  observe,)  "what  his  special  temp- 
tation was,  we  do  not  know."  Therefore,  neither  do  we  know  whe- 
ther any  of  his  posterity  could  have  overcome  it ;  much  less,  that 
"  many  of  his  posterity  have  overcome  temptations  more  violent  than 
his."  All  this  is  talking  in  the  dark,  '  not  knowing  what  we  say, 
neither  whereof  vve  affirm.' 

"  And  now  let  any  man  see,  whether  there  be  any  ground  in  Re- 
velation, for  exalting  Adam's  nature  as  divines  have  done,  who  have- 
affirmed,  that  all  his  faculties  were  eminently  perfect,  and  entirely 
set  to  the  love  and  obedience  of  his  Creator."  (p.  175.)  "And  yet 
these  same  suppose  him  to  have  been  guilty  of  the  vilest  act  that  ever 
was  committed."  (p.  176.) 

They  suppose  Adam  to  have  been  created  holy  and  wise,  like  his 
Creator  :  and  yet  capable  of  falUng  from  it.  They  suppose  farther, 
that  through  temptations,  of  which  we  cannot  possibly  judge,  he  diii 
tall  from  that  state  ;  and  that  hereby  he  brought  pain,  labour,  and 
sorrow  on  himself  and  all  his  posterity :  together  with  death,  no! 
only  temporal,  but  spiritual,  and  (without  the  grace  of  God)  eternal 
/Vnd  it  must  be  confessed,  that  not  only  a  few  divines,  but  the  whole 
body  of  Christians,  in  all  ages,  did  supj)Ose  this,  till  after  seventeen 
hundred  years  a  sweet-tongued  orator  arose,  not  only  more  enlight- 
ened than  silly  Adam,  but  than  any  of  his  wise  posterity  :  and  de- 
clared, that  the  whole  supposition  was  folly,  nonsense,  inconsistency, 
and  blasphemy ! 

"Obj.  H.  But  do  not  the  Scriptures  say,  Adam  was  created 
after  God's  own  image  1  And  do  his  posterity  bear  that  image 
now  1" 

"  The  Scriptures  do  say,  Gen.  i.  27, '  God  created  man  in  his  own 

image.'     But  whatever  that  phrase  means  here,  it  doubtless  means 

the  same  in  Gen.  ix.  6,  '  Whoso  sheddeth  man's  blood,  by  man  shall 

liis  blood  be  shed  :  for  in  the  image  of  God  made  he  man.' "     Cer- 

VoL.  9.— X 


-42  niE   DOCTEIA-E   OF  [PAET  11.  §  (>.. 

taiiily  it  has  the  same  meaning  in  both  places  :  for  the  latter  plainly 
refers  to  the  former.  And  thus  much  we  may  fairly  infer  from  hence, 
that  the  image  of  God,  wherein  man  was  at  first  created,  wherein- 
soever it  consisted,  was  not  utterly  eifaced  in  the  time  of  Noah. 
Yea,  so  much  of  it  will  always  remain  in  all  men,  as  will  justify  the 
punishing  murderers  with  death.  But  we  can  in  nowise  infer  from 
hence,  that  that  entire  image  of  God,  in  which  Adam  was  at  first 
created,  now  remains  in  all  his  posterity. 

The  words  of  Gen.  v.  3,  rendered  literally,  are,  '  He  begat  in  his 
likeness,  according  to  his  image.'  "Adam,"  says  Mr.  Hervey,  "was 
created  in  the  image  of  God.  After  his  fall,  the  sacred  historian  va- 
ries his  style,  and  with  a  remarkable  peculiarity,  as  well  as  propriety, 
says,  Mam  begat  a  son  in  his  own  likeness;  (so  it  must  be  translated 
according  to  all  the  rules  of  grammar,  Adam  being  the  nearest  an- 
tecedent.) That  every  reader  may  advert  to  this  melancholy,  but 
important  truth,  it  is  enforced  by  a  very  emphatical  repetition  ;  after 
his  own  image,  as  contradistinguished  from  that  image  of  God,  men- 
tioned in  the  preceding  verse  :  which  expressions  are  evidently  in- 
tended to  denote  the  difference  between  the  state  in  which  Adam  wae> 
created  and  Seth  begotten." 

"  The  two  following  texts  are  brought  by  the  ^^ssemhly  to  shov/, 
what  the  image  of  God  was,  in  which  Adam  was  made."  (p.  178.) 
Col.  iii.  10,  'And  have  put  on  the  new  man,  which  is  renewed  in 
knowledge,  after  the  image  of  him  that  created  him.'  Eph.  iv.  24, 
'  Put  on  the  new  man,  which  after'  the  image  of  God  '  is  created  in 
righteousness  and  true  holiness. ' 

"  I  answer,  These  texts  are  parallel.  '  The  old  man'  means  '  a 
wicked  life,  the  new  man,'  a  good  life  ;  to  which  they  were  formed 
and  created  by  the  gospel  dispensation.  And  this  '  new  man,'  this 
new  life  is  '  after  the  image,'  that  is,  agreeable  to  tlic  nature  of  God."' 
(p.  179.) 

As  you  advance  no  proof  of  this  perfectly  new  interpretation,  I 
leave  it  to  shift  for  itself. 

To  disprove  the  common  interpretation,  yon  add,  "  Adam  could 
not  be  originally  created  in  righteousness  and  true  holiness ;  because 
habits  of  holiness  cannot  be  created  without  our  knowledge,  concur- 
rence, or  consent.  For  holiness  in  its  nature,  implies  the  choice  and 
consent  of  a  moral  agent,  without  which  it  cannot  be  holiness.'' 
(p.  180.) 

What  is  holiness  1  Is  it  not  essentially  love  1  The  love  of  God  and 
of  all  mankind  1  Love  producing  '  bowels  of  mercies,  humbleness 
of  mind,  meekness,  gentleness,  long-suffering  1'  And  cannot  God 
shed  abroad  this  love  in  any  soul,  without  his  concurrence  1  Ante- 
cedent to  his  knowledge  or  consent  ?  And  supposing  this  to  be  done, 
will  love  change  its  nature  1  Will  it  be  no  longer  holiness  ?  This  ar- 
gument can  never  be  sustained  ;  unless  you  would  play  upon  the 
word  habits.  Love  is  holiness  wherever  it  exists.  And  God  could 
create  either  men  or  angels,  endued  from  the  very  first  moment  of 
their  existence,  with  whatsoever  degree  of  love  he  pleased. 


PART  II.  §  3.]  ORIGINAL   SIN.  245 

You  "  think,  on  tlie  contrar}',  it  is  demonstration,  that  we  cannot 
be  righteous  or  holy,  we  cannot  observe  what  is  right,  without  our 
own  free  and  explicit  choice."  1  suppose  you  mean,  practise  what 
is  right.  But  a  man  may  be  righteous,  before  he  does  what  is  right, 
holy  in  heart  before  he  is  holy  in  hfe.  The  confounding  these  two 
all  along,  seems  the  ground  of  your  strange  imagination,  that  Adam 
"  must  choose  to  be  righteous,  must  exercise  thought  and  reflection 
before  he  could  be  righteous."  Why  so  1  "  Because  righteousness 
is  the  right  use  and  application  of  our  powers."  Here  is  your 
capital  mistake.  No,  it  is  not :  it  is  the  right  state  of  our  powers. 
It  is  the  right  disposition  of  our  soul,  the  right  temper  of  our  mind. 
Take  this  with  you,  and  you  will  no  more  dream,  that  "  God  could 
not  create  man  in  righteousness  and  true  holiness  :"  or  that  "  to  talk 
of  wanting  that  righteousness  in  which  Adam  was  created,  is  to  talk 
of  nothing  we  want.''  (p.  181.) 

On  Rom.  ii.  14,  you  observe,  "  This  text  clearly  proves,  that  na- 
tural reason  and  understanding,  is  a  rule  of  action  to  all  mankind, 
and  that  all  men  ought  to  follow  it.  This  therefore  overthrows  the 
whole  doctrine  of  original  sin.'^  (p.  183.)  How  do  you  prove  the 
consequence  ]  May  not  men  have  some  reason  left,  which  in  some 
measure  discerns  good  from  evil,  and  yet  be  deeply  fallen,  even  as  to 
their  understanding,  as  well  as  their  will  and  affections  1 

On  Eccles  vii.  39,  '  God  hath  made  man  upiight,  but  they  have 
found  out  many  inventions,'  (p.  184,  185,)  you  say,  "Man  here 
means  all  mankind  ;  vprl.gJd,  endued  with  powers  to  know  and  per- 
Ibrm  their  duty."  You  olfer  no  praof  for  either  of  these  assertions. 
And  without  it  I  cannot  receive  them. 

Again,  "  They  (you  say)  means  mankind  in  general."  i  rather 
believe  it  means  our  first  parents,  who  are  by  Moses  likewise  com- 
prehended under  the  common  name  of  man,  or  rather  oix.  Mam, 
iso  Gen.  v.  3,  '  God  called  their  name  Jldani  in  the  day  when  they 
were  created.'  And  in  the  day  that  they  fell,  whoever  reads  Gen. 
ill  will  see  they  found  out  not  one,  but  many  inventions.  This  text 
therefore  in  its  obvious  meaning  teaches  both  the  original  upright- 
uess,  and  subsequent  fall  of  man. 

From  all  these  texts  it  manifestly  appears,  1.  That  man  was 
created  in  the  image  of  God,  2.  That  this  image  consisted  not  only 
in  his  rational  and  immortal  nature,  and  his  dominion  over  the  crea- 
tures, but  also  in  knoicledge,  actual  knowledge  both  of  God  and  of 
his  works,  in  the  light  state  of  his  intellectual  powers,  and  in  love^ 
tvhich  is  true  holiness. 

"  Obj.  III.  But  do  we  not  derive  from  Adam  a  moral  taint  and  in- 
fection, whereby  we  have  a  natural  propensity  to  sin  1"  (p.  186.) 

"  I  answer,  we  have  many  natural  appetites  and  passions,  which  it 
they  grow  irregular,  become  sinful.  But  this  does  not  amount  to  a 
natural  propensity  to  sin."  But  is  not  pride  sin  1  Is  not  idolatry  sin  % 
And  is  it  not  idolatry,  to  '  love  the  creature  more  than  the  Creator  V 
is  not  revenge  sin  '\  Is  it  not  sin  to  '  look  upon  a  woman,'  so  as  to 
lust  after  her  ?'  And  have  not  all  men  a  natural  propensity  to  these 


i4i  THE    DOCTKINE    OF  [PAET  11.  §  'S. 

things '.'  They  have  all  then  a  natural  propensity  to  sin.  Neverthe- 
less this  propensity  is  not  necessary,  if  by  necessary  you  mean  irre- 
nstible.  We  can  resist  and  conquer  it  too,  by  the  grace  which  is 
sver  at  hand. 

This  propensity  to  pride,  to  revenge,  to  idolatry,  (call  it  taint,  oi 
any  thing,)  cannot  be  pleasing  to  God,  who  yet  in  fact  does  permit 
that  it  should  descend  from  Adam  to  his  latest  posterity.  And  "  wc 
can  neither  helj)  nor  hinder"  its  descending  to  us.  Indeed  we  can 
heap  up  plausible  arguments,  to  prove  the  impossibility  of  it.  Bui 
1  feel  it,  and  the  argument  drops.  Bring  ever  so  many  proofs,  that 
there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  motion.     I  move  and  they  vanish  away, 

"  But  nature  cannot  be  morally  corrupted,  but  by  the  choice  oi 
a  moral  agent."  (p.  187.)  You  may  play  upon  words  as  long  as  yoi? 
please  ;  but  still  I  hold  this  fast :  I  (and  you  too,  whether  you  will 
own  it  or  not)  am  inclined,  and  was  ever  since  1  can  remember,  an- 
tecedently to  any  choice  of  my  own,  to  pride,  revenge,  idolatry,  ll 
you  v/ill  not  call  these  moral  corruptions,  call  them  just  what  you  wilL 
But  the  fact  I  am  as  well  assured  of,  as  that  1  have  any  memory  o>- 
understanding. 

"  But  some  have  attempted  to  explain  this  intricate  affair.'' 
"p.  188.)  I  do  not  commend  their  wisdom.  I  do  not  attempt  to 
explain  even  how  I,  at  this  moment,  stretch  out  my  hand,  or  move 
my  finger. 

One  more  of  your  assertions  1  must  not  pass  over.  "  It  is  absurd 
to  say,  infection  is  derived  from  Adam,  independent  of  the  will  oi 
God.  And  to  say,  it  is  by  his  will,  is  to  make  him  the  author  of  the 
pollution.''  (p.  189.)  We  answer.  It  is  not  derived  from  Adam,  in- 
dependent of  the  will  of  God ;  that  is,  his  permissive  will :  but  om 
allowing  this,  does  not  make  him  the  author  of  the  pollution. 

"  Obj,  IV.  But  do  not  the  vices  of  parents  often  infect  their 
children  1"  (p.  190,  191.)     I  think  we  cannot  deny  it. 

"  Obj,  V.  How  can  we  account  for  children's  beginning  so  soou 
to  sin,  but  by  supposing  they  have  a  natural  propensity  to  it  V- 
(p.  192.) 

''  I  answer.  Who  can  tell,  how  soon  they  begin  1"  Then  thev 
begin  when  they  first  show  wrong  tempers  :  such  as  plain,  undenia- 
ble frowardness,  revenge,  self-will,  which  is  as  soon  as  they  have 
any  exercise  of  reason.  So  that  the  use  of  reason  and  the  abuse, 
generally  commence  and  grow  up  together.  As  soon  as  their  facul- 
ties appear  at  all,  they  appear  to  be  disordered :  the  wrong  state 
of  their  powers,  being  easily  inferred  from  their  continual  wrong 
application  of  them. 

"  But  if  parents  were  wise  and  virtuous  themselves,  and  then  en- 
deavoured to  bring  up  their  children  virtuously,  there  would  be  less 
wickedness  in  the  Avorld."  There  would  :  but  this  does  not  reach 
the  point;  nor,  that  "undisciplined  children  contract  bad  habits." 
I  have  known  wise  and  virtuous  parents,  who  did  earnestly  laboui 
to  bring  up  their  children  virtuously ;  and  disciplined  them  with  all 
possible  care,  from  the  very  first  dawn  of  reason.     Yet  these  ver\ 


^A&l  II.  §  3.j  ORlGiNjj.  Si:?.  245 

"ohildren  showed  bad  tempers  before  it  was  possible  they  could  "  con- 
tract bad  habits.^'*  They  daily  evidenced  the  icroiiir  stale  of  all  their 
faculties,  both  of  their  understanding,  will,  and  atfections,  just  con- 
trary both  to  the  exansples  and  instructions  of  all  that  were  round 
about  them.  Here  then  those  icrong  tempers  were  not  owing  to 
''  the  fault  of  careless  or  ungodly  parents  :"  nor  could  be  rationally 
accounted  for,  but  by  the  supposing  those  children  to  have  a  naturat 
propendly  to  evii 

It  is  indeed  a  general  rule,  '  Train  up  a  child  in  the  way  he  should. 
%o,  and  when  he  is  old  he  will  not  depart  from  it,'  (Prov.  xxii.  6  :) 
and  there  is  much  truth  in  that  observation,  '  Foolishness  is  bound 
in  the  heart  of  a  child  ;  but  the  rod  of  correction  shall  drive  it  far 
from  him,'  (ver.  lo  ;)  that  is,  prudent  correction  is  the  most  proba- 
ble means  which  you  can  use  to  remove  that  foolishness.  Yet  this 
no  way  contradicts  what  is  matter  of  daily  experience,  that  we  have 
a  natural  propensity  to  evil.  Nay,  the  latter  of  these  texts  strongly 
conlirms  it:  for  if  there  be  no  such  propensity,  how  comes  foolish- 
}iess  (that  is  loickedness,  in  the  language  of  Solomon)  to  be  '  bound 
in  the  heart  of  a  child  V  Of  every  child,  of  children  in  general, 
as  the  phrase  manifestly  imports.  It  is  not  from  education  here  : 
it  is  supposed  to  be  antecedent  to  education,  whether  good  or  bad. 
"  Oh,  foohshness  means  only  strong  appetite.^^  Yes,  strong  appetite 
to  evil.  Otherwise  it  would  not  call  for  the  rod  of  coirection,  or  need 
1o  be  driven  far  from  him. 

"  Obj.  VI.  Might  not  Adam's  posterity  be  said  to  sin  in  him,  as 
Levi  is  said  to  pay  tithes  in  Abraham  V  (Heb.  vii.  9.) 

If  the  querist  means,  not  to  pmve  a  doctrine  already  proved,  but 
only  to  illustrate  one  expression  by  another,  your  answer,  "  That 
it  is  a  bold  figure,"  (p,  195,)  does  not  at  all  affect  him.  It  is 
oo  :  but  still  it  may  be  pertinently  cited  to  illustrate  a  similar  ex- 
pression. 

"  Obj.  VII.  '  But  there  is  a  law  in  our  members  which  wars  against 
the  law  of  our  minds,  and  brings  us  into  captivity  to  the  law  of  sia 
and  death."  (p.  199.)  And  docs  not  this  prove,  that  we  come  into 
the  woi'ld  with  sinful  propensities  ? 

You  answer,  1.  "  If  we  pome  into  the  world  with  them,  they  are 
natural ;  but  if  natural^  necessary ;  and  if  necessary,  then  no  sin." 
(p.  200.) 

If  the  consequence  were  good,  with  regard  to  what  is  so  natural 
and  necessary,  as  to  be  irresistible,  yet  certainly  it  is  not  good, 
ivith  regard  to  those  propensities,  which  we  may  both  resist  and 
conquer. 

You  answer,  2.  "  The  apostle  does  not  in  this  chapter,  speak  of 
any  man  as  he  comes  into  the  world,  but  as  he  is  afterward  depraved 
and  corrupted  by  his  own  wicked  choice."  AVhere  is  the  proof?- 
How  does  it  appear,  that  he  does  not  speak  of  men  corrupted  botlt 
by  choice  and  by  nature  1 

You  answer,  3.  "  He  does  not  speak  of  himself,  or  any  regenerate- 
man,  but  of  a  Jew  under  the  power  of  sin."  (p.  200.)     Nay,  jovur 

X  3 


MG  THE    DOCTRINE   Of  [PART   11.    §    S. 

argument  proves  he  (iocs  not  speak  of  any  Jew,  For  in  order  to 
prove,  "  the  apostle  does  not  speak  of  himself,"  you  say,  "  the 
persons  of  whom  he  speaks,  were,  before  the  commandment  came. 
I.  e.  before  they  came  under  the  lav/,  once  without  the  law.  But  the 
apostle  never  was  without  the  law."  No,  nor  any  Jew.  "  For 
he  was  born,  and  continued  under  the  law,  till  he  was  a  Christian.'' 
•So  did  all  the  Jews,  as  Avell  as  he  ; — "  and  therefore  it  cannot  be 
true,  that  he"  or  any  Jew  whatever,  "  was  \mlhout  the  law  before 
he  came  under  it."  So  you  have  clearly  proved,  that  the  apostle 
does  not  in  this  passage  speak  of  any  Jew  at  all. 

But  why  do  you  think  he  does  speak  of  Jews  ?  Nay,  of  them. 
only?  It  "appears,  you  say,  from  ver.  1,  'I  speak  to  them  thav 
know  the  law.'  For  the  Gentiles  never  were  under  the  law.^'  Yes, 
they  were  :  all  the  Gentiles  who  were  convinced  of  sin,  were  under 
the  lavj  in  the  sense  here  spoken  of,  under  the  condemning  power  oi 
the  law  '  written  in  their  hearts,'  for  transgressing  which  they  were 
under  the  wrath  of  God.  And  this  whole  chapter,  from  the  seventh 
to  the  twenty-fourth  verse,  describes  the  state  of  all  those,  Jews  oi 
Gentiles,  who  saio  and  felt  the  wickedness  both  of  their  hearts  and 
lives,  and  groaned  to  be  delivered  from  it. 

Many  passages  in  your  paraphrase  on  the  former  part  of  this 
chapter,  are  liable  to  much  exception ;  but  as  they  do  not  imme- 
diately touch  the  point  in  question,  I  pass  on  to  the  latter  part. 

Yer.  14,  'I  am  carnal,  sold  under  sin.'  "  He  means  a  wilHng 
slavery."  (p.  216.)  Quite  the  contrary,  as  appears  from  the  ver} 
next  words,  '  For  that  which  I  do  I  allow  not :  for  what  I  would. 
I  do  not ;  but  what  I  hate  that  I  do.'  What  I  hate  :  not  barely, 
•'  what  my  reason  disapproves  :"  but  what  I  really  detest  and  abhor^ 
but  cannot  help. 

Yer.  1 7.  '  Now  then,  it  is  no  more  I  that  do  it,  but  sin  that  dwel- 
leth  in  me.'  "  It  is  my  sinful  propensities,  my  indulged  appetites 
and  passions."  (p.  217.)  True  ;  but  those  propensities  were  ante- 
cedent to  that  indulgence, 

"  But  the  apostle  cannot  mean,  that  there  is  something  in  man 
which  makes  him  sin,  whether  he  will  or  not.  For  then  it  would 
not  be  sin  at  all."  Experience  explains  his  meaning.  I  have  felt 
ki  me  a  thousand  times,  something  which  made  me  transgress  God'& 
law,  whether  I  would  or  not.  \  et  I  dare  not  say  that  transgression 
of  the  law  was  "  no  sin  at  all." 

Yer.  18.  '  For  I  know,  that  in  me,  that  is,  in  my  flesh,'  (not  my 
"  fleshly  appetites"  only,  but  my  v/hole  nature  while  unrenewed,) 
'  dweileth  no  good  thing.  For  to  will'  indeed,  '  is  present  with 
me  :'  not  barely  "  that  natural  faculty,  the  will,"  but  an  actual  will 
to  do  good,  as  evidently  appears  from  the  following  words,  '  But 
^ow  to  perform  that  which  is  good,  1  find  not :'  !  have  the  desire, 
but  not  the  power. 

Yer.  19.  'For  the  good  that  I  would,'  that  I  desire  and  choose, 
'  I  do  not :  but  the  evil  which  I  would  not,'  which  I  hate,  *  that 
Ido.' 


t»ART    II.    §    3.]  ORIGI^-AL   SIX.  247 

Ver.  20.  *  Now  if  I  do  that  I  would  not,  it  is  no  more  I,  but  sin 
that  dwelleth  in  mc  :'  but  "  the  prevalency  of  sensual  aft'ections," 
(p.  218,)  yea  sinful  tei^ipers  of  every  kind,  "  settled  and  ruling  in 
my  heart,"  both  by  nature  and  habit. 

Ver.  21.  '  I  find  then,  that  when  1  would  do  good,'  when  I  choose 
and  earnestly  desire  it,  I  cannot :  '  evil  is  present  with  me  ;'  as  it 
were  gets  in  between. 

Ver.  22.  '  For  I  delight  in  the  law  of  God,  after  the  inward  man :' 
my  mind,  my  conscience  approves  it. 

Ver.  23.  '  But  I  see  another  law  in  my  members  which  warretli 
against  the  law  iu  my  mind  :'  (p.  219.)  "  Another  principle  of 
action  which  tights  against  my  reason"  and  conscience,  'and  bringeth 
me  into  captivity  to  the  law  of  sin  which  is  in  my  members  :'  which 
"  captivates  and  enslaves  me  to  the  principle  of  wickedness." 
(Strange  language  for  you  to  use  !)  "  Seated  in  the  lusts  of  the 
tiesh  :"  seated  indeed  in  all  my  tempers,  passions,  and  appetites, 
which  are  the  several  members  of  the  old  man. 

Ver.  24.  '  O  wretched  man  that  I  am :  who  shall  deliver  me  from 
the  body  of  this  death  V  "  He  is  under  the  power  of  such  passions, 
as  his  own  reason  disapproves,  but  is  too  weak  to  conquer  :  and 
N.  B.  being  a  Jew,  he  stands  condemned  to  eternal  death  by  the 
law.  How  shall  such  a  wretched  Jew  be  delivered  from  sinful 
lusts,  and  the  curse  of  the  law  ?"  Did  then  none  but  a  Jew  ever 
cry  out,  under  the  burden  of  sin,  '  wretched  man  that  I  am  V  Are 
none  but  Jews  "  under  the  power  of  such  passions,  as  their  own 
reason  disapproves,  but  is  too  weak  to  conquer  ?'  And  does  the  law 
of  God  "  condemn  to  eternal  death,"  no  sinners  beside  Jews  1 
Do  not  Christians  also,  (in  the  wide  sense  of  the  word,)  groan  to 
be  '  delivered  from  the  body  of  this  death  V  With  what  truth,  with 
what  sense  can  you  restrain  this  passage  to  a  Jew,  any  more  thar 
to  a  Turk  ] 

I  cannot  but  observe  upon  the  whole,  the  question  is,  "  Does  not 
Rom.  vii.  23,  show,  that  we  come  into  the  world  with  sinful  propen- 
sities ]"  (This  is  all  that  is  pertinent  in  the  objection  awkwardly 
proposed,  p.  199.)  But  instead  of  keeping  to  this,  you  spend  above 
twenty  pages  in  proving,  that  this  chapter  does  not  describe  a 
regenerate  person  !  It  may,  or  it  may  not :  but  this  does  not  touch 
the  question,  "  Do  not  men  come  into  the  world  with  sinful  propen- 
sities 1" 

We  have  undoubtedly  an  additional  proof,  that  they  do,  in  the 
v/ords  of  Jeremiah,  ch.  xvii.  9,  '  The  heart  is  deceitful  above  all 
things,  and  desperately  wicked  :  Who  can  know  it  V  On  this  you 
descant,  (one  instance  of  a  thousand,  of  your  artful  manner  of  de- 
claiming, in  order  to  forestall  the  reader's  judgment,  and  'deceive  the 
hearts  of  the  simple,')  "  Christians  too  generally  neglecting  the  study 
of  the  Scripture,  content  themselves  with  a  few  scraps,  which  though 
wrong  understood,  they  make  the  test  of  truth,  in  contradiction  to 
the  whole  tenor  of  revelation.  Thus  this  text  has  been  misapplied 
to  prove,  that  every  man's  heart  is  so  desperately  wicked,  that  no 


'J4^  THE    DOCTRINE    OF  [PART  U.  §  3- 

man  can  know  how  v/icked  his  heart  is."  (p.  224.)  O  what  Tn^xvoMyta^ 
persuasiveness  of  speech  !  After  reading  this,  I  was  much  inclined  to 
believe,  without  going  a  step  fai'ther,  that  this  text  had  been  "gene- 
rally misunderstood.'  I  thought,  probably  it  has  been  misapplied, 
and  does  not  ass-rt,  that  every  man's  '  heart  is  desperately  wicked.' 
But  no  sooner  did  I  read  over  the  very  verses  you  cite,  than  the 
clear  light  appeared  again,  (ver.  5.)  '  Cursed  be  the  man  that  trusteth 
in  man,  and  whose  heart  departeth  from  the  Lord.'  (p.  224.)  That 
man,  whom  we  are  not  to  trust  in,  means  man  in  general,  cannot  be 
denied.  After  repeating  the  intermediate  verses,  you  yourself  add, 
'' He  subjoins  a  reason,  (ver.  9,)  which  demonstrates  the  error  of 
trusting  in  man  :  'The  heart  is  deceitful  above  all  things  and  despe- 
rately wicked  ;  who  can  know  it  1'  This  text,  therefore,  does  not 
mean,  who  can  know  his  own  heart,  but  another's."  Whether  it 
means  one  or  both,  it  positively  asserts,  that  '  the  heart  of  man,'  of 
men  in  general,  of  every  man,  is  'desperately  wicked.'  Therefore 
as  to  the  main  point  contained  therein,  "  Christians  do  not  under- 
stand it  wrong,"  (p.  224,)  neither  misapply  it  at  all. 

When  1  say,  "  I  feel,  I  have  a  wicked  heart,"  (p.  225.)  another 
thing  which  you  do  not  understand,  I  mean  this,  "  1  feel  much  pride 
remaining  in  my  heart,  much  self-will,  much  unbelief.  Now  I  really 
believe,  pride  and  self-will,  and  unbelief,  to  be  essentially  wicked 
tempers.  Therefore  in  whatever  heart  they  remain,  (and  they  re- 
main in  your's  as  well  as  mine,)  that  is  a  wicked  heart. 

After  a  long  pause,  you  return  to  the  7th  of  the  Romans  and  af- 
firm, "  We  cannot  fi'om  any  thing  in  that  chapter  infer,  that  we  came 
into  the  world  with  sinful  dispositions  derived  from  Adam;  for  the 
apostle  says  nothing  about  Adam."  (p.  229.)  He  had  said  enough 
in  the  5th  chapter  of  the  cause.  Here  he  only  describes  the  effect : 
the  state  of  those,  who  are  now  '  brought  to  the  birth  :'  but  '  there 
is  not  yet  strength  to  bring  forth.' 

"  Nor  can  we  infer  from  hence,  that  any  man  sins  through  a  prin- 
ciple which  it  was  never  in  his  power  to  command.  For  then  it 
would  be  no  sin."  Upon  this  I  would  only  ask.  Are  you  assured, 
-that  no  man  transgresses  God's  law,  (whether  you  will  call  it  sin,  or 
not,)  through  a  principle  which  it  was  never  in  his  power  to  com- 
mand ?  At  least  not  for  any  time  together  ]  Every  passionate  man 
can  confute  you  in  this.     He  has  sad  experience  of  the  contrary. 

To  those  objections  which  you  have,  in  some  sort,  answered,  you 
subjoin  the  following  questions. 

Quest.  I.  "Is  not  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  necessary  to  account 
,<'or  the  being  of  so  much  wickedness  in  the  world  1"  (p.  231.) 

You  answer,  "  Adam's  nature,  it  is  allowed,  was  not  sinful,  and 
yet  he  sinned.  Therefore  this  doctrine  is  no  more  necessary  to  ac- 
count for  the  wickedness  of  the  world  than  to  account  for  xldam's 
!^in."  Yes,  it  is.  I  can  account  for  one  man's  sinning,  or  a  hundred, 
or  even  half  mankind,  suppose  they  were  evenly  poised  between 
vice  and  virtue,  from  their  own  choice,  which  might  turn  one  way 


i»ART  ir.  §  3.]  ORIGINAL   SIX.  249 

or  the  other.     But  I  cannot  possibly  on  this   supposition  account 
ior  the  general  wickedness  of  mankind  in  all  ages  and  nations. 

Again.  "  If  men  were  never  drawn  into  sin  any  other  way,  than 
as  Adam  was,  namely  by  temptations  offered  from  without,  there 
might  be  something  in  this  answer.  But  there  are  numberless  in- 
stances of  men  sinning,  though  no  temptation  is  ottered  from  with- 
out. It  is  necessary,  therefore,  some  other  account  should  be  given 
of  their  sinning  than  of  Adam's.  And  how  to  account  for  the  uni- 
versal spread  of  sin  over  the  whole  world  without  one  exception,  il 
there  were  no  corruption  in  their  common  head,  would  be  an  insur- 
mountable difficulty.*'  (Vind.  p.  110.) 

Quest.  II.  "  How  then  are  we  born  into  the  world  1"  {p.  232.) 
You  answer,  "  As  void  of  actual  knowledge  as  the  brutes." 
And  can  you  really  imagine  that  text.  Job  xi.  1 2,  '  Vain  man 
v/ould  be  wise,'  (evidently  spoken  of  man  in  general,)  'though  a 
man  be  born  like  a  wild  ass's  colt ;'  implies  no  more  than,  "  Men 
are  born  void  of  actual  knowledge  1"  Do  we  need  inspiration  to 
make  this  discovery,  that  a  new-born  child  has  no  actual  knowledge  'i 
Is  man  compared  to  a  loild  ass,  of  all  animals  the  most  stupid,  to 
teach  us  no  m.ore  than  this '?  Yea,  a  wild  ass's  colt  1  Does  not  this 
intimate  any  thing  of  untractableness,  sullenness,  stubbornness,  per- 
verseness  %  "  How  keenly  is  the  comparison  pointed  ?  Like  the  ass, 
an  animal  stupid  even  to  a  proverb  :  like  the  ass's  colt,  which  must 
1)6  still  more  egregiously  stupid  than  its  dam  :  like  the  ivild  ass^s  colt, 
which  is  not  only  blockish,  but  stubborn  and  refractoi  y ;  neither  has 
valuable  quahties  by  nature,  nor  will  easily  receive  them  by  disci- 
pline. The  image  in  the  original  is  yet  more  strongly  touched. 
The  particle  like  is  not  in  the  Hebrew,  Born  a  wild  ass^s  coll;  or, 
as  we  shoultl  say  in  English,  a  mere  tcild  ass's  coll.''''* 

Yes,  "  We  are  born  with  many  sensual  appetites  and  passions  , 
])ut  every  one  of  these  are  in  themselves  good.*''  I  grant  all  the  ap- 
petites and  passions  originally  implanted  in  our  nature,  icere  good  in 
themselves.  But  are  all  that  now  exist  in  us  good  1  "If  not,  the\ 
become  evil  only  by  excess  or  abuse."  First,  this  may  be  doubted, 
I  do  not  know,  that  love  of  praise,  of  power,  of  money,  become 
eviloidy  by  abuse.  I  am  afraid  these  and  other  passions,  which  we 
have  had  from  our  infancy,  are  evil  in  themselves.  But  be  that  as  it 
may,  in  how  few  do  we  find  even  the  more  innocent  passions  and  ap- 
petites, clear  of  excess  or  abuse  1  "  But  all  that  is  wrong  in  them 
is  from  habit."  This  cannot  be  allowed  as  universally  true.  The 
little  children  of  wise  and  pious  parents,  have  not  yet  contracted  ill 
habits.  Yet  before  they  can  go  alone,  they  show  such  passions  as 
are  palpably  excessive,  if  not  evil  in  themselves. 

But  whatever  they  are  in  themselves,  here  is  the  "  grand  difficulty, 
of  which  you  give  us  no  manner  of  solution  ;"  "  whence  comes  it 
to  pass,  that  those  appetites  and  passions  which  no  doubt  were  at 
lirst  kindly  implanted  in  our  nature,  by  an  holy  God,  are  now  be- 

*Thenjnand  Aspasio,  Dialogue  11. 


i[}0  THE    DOCTHINE    OF  [PAET  II.    §  3-. 

come  SO  excessive  or  irregular,  that  no  one  man  from  the  beginning 
o(  the  world  has  so  resisted  them,  as  to  keep  himself  pure  and  in- 
aocentl" 

"  But  without  these  appetites  and  passions,  our  nature  would  be 
defective,  sluggish,  or  unarmed.  Nor  is  there  any  one  of  them 
which  we  can  at  present  spare."  We  could  very  well  spare  the  ex- 
cess and  irregularity  of  them  all :  and  possibly,  some  of  the  passions 
themselves,  as  love  of  praise,  and  love  of  revenge.  The  love  of 
God  would  more  than  supply  the  place  of  both  :  neither  does  it  suf- 
fer us  to  be  sluggish  or  inactive.  Nor  does  calm,  Christian  fortitude 
leave  us  unarmed  against  any  danger  which  can  occur.  "  But  ouv 
reason  would  have  nothing  to  struggle  with."  (p.  223.)  O  yes,  not 
only  all  our  reason,  but  all  the  grace  we  have  received,  has  enough 
to  struggle  with,  even  when  we  do  not  torestle  with  flesh  and  blood. 
We  are  still  abundantly  "  exercised"  by  'prmcipalities  and  powers, 
and  spiritual  wickedness  in  high  places.' 

"  On  the  other  hand,  we  are  born  with  rational  powers,  which 
grow  gradually  capable  of  the  most  useful  knowledge.  And  we 
unaer  the  gospel,  have  clear  ideas  of  the  Divine  Perfections  :  we  see 
our  duty,  and  the  most  cogent  reasons  to  perform  it.''  This  sounds 
well.  But  will  knowledge  balance  passion  ?  Or  are  rational  powers 
a  counterpoise  to  sensual  appetites'?  Will  clear  ideas  deliver  men 
from  lust  or  vanity  I  Or  seeing  the  duty  to  love  our  enemies  enable 
us  to  practise  it  ?  What  are  cogent  reasons  opposed  to  covetousness 
or  ambition  1  A  thread  of  tow  that  has  touched  the  fire.  "  But 
the  Spirit  of  God  is  promised  for  our  assistance."  Nay,  but  what 
need  of  him,  upon  your  scheme  1  Man  is  sutficient  for  himself.  He 
that  glorieth  on  this  hypothesis,  must  glory  in  himself,  not  in  the  Lord. 

Quest.  III.  "  How  far  is  our  present  state  the  same  with  that  of 
Adam  in  Paradise  V  (p.  235.) 

I  suppose  "  our  mental  capacities  are  the  same  as  Adam's,  only 
that  some  are  above,  some  below  his  standard.  Probably  there  are 
many  in  the  world  much  below  Adam,  in  rational  endowments.  But 
possibly  the  force  and  acuieness  of  understanding  Avas  much  greater 
in  our  Sir  Isaac  Newton  than  in  Adam." 

I  do  not  apprehend  this  requires  any  answer.  He  that  can  be- 
lieve it,  let  him  believe  it. 

"  We  are  next  to  inquire,  upon  what  true  grounds  those  parts  of 
religion  stand,  which  the  Schoolmen  have  founded  upon  the  doctrine 
of  original  sin  :  particularly  the  two  grand  articles  of  Redemption 
and  Regeneration." 

In  what  century  did  the  Schoolmen  write  ]  How  long  before  St. 
Augustine,  (to  go  no  higher?)  A  sad  specimen  this  of  "the 
honesty  and  impartiality  with  which  you  deliver  your  sentiments  !" 

I.  Redemption. 

"  Our  fall,  corruption,  and  apostacy  in  Adam  has  been  made  the 
reason  why  the  Sou  of  God  came  into  the  v/orld  and  '  gave  himself 
a  ransom'  for  us." 


PART  II.  §  3.]  OKIGISAL   SIN.  251 

And,  undoubtedly,  it  is  the  reason.  Accordingly  the  very  first 
promise  of  the  Redeemer  was  given  presently  after  the  tail.  And 
given  with  a  manifest  reference  to  those  evils  which  came  on  all  men 
through  Adam's  transgression.  Nor  does  it  appear  from  any  Scrip- 
ture, that  he  would  have  come  into  the  world  at  all,  had  not  '  all  men 
died  in  Adam.' 

You  yourself  allow,  "the  Apostle  affirms,  Rom.  v.  18,  19,  that  by 
•  the  righteousness  and  obedience  of  Christ,'  all  men  are  delivered 
from  the  condemnation  and  sentence  they  came  under  through  Adam'e* 
disobedience :  and  that  thus  far  the  redemption  by  Christ  stands  in 
connexion  with  Adam's  transgression."  (p.  238.) 

"But  the  redemption  by  Christ,  extends  tar  beyond  the  conse- 
quences of  Adam's  transgression."  It  does.  Men  receive  far  greater 
blessings  by  Christ,  than  those  they  lost  by  Adam.  But  this  doep 
not  prove,  that  our  fall  in  Adam  is  not  the  ground  of  our  redemption 
by  Christ. 

Let  us  once  more  consider  the  text  itself,  (ver.  15  )  'But  not  as 
the  offence,  so  is  the  free-gift.  For  if  through  the  offence  of  one 
many  be  dead,  much  more  the  grace  of  God  and  the  gift  by  grace,' 
the  blessing  which  flows  from  the  mere  mercy  of  God,  '  which  is  by 
one  man,  Jesus  Christ,  hath  abounded  unto  many.'  (Ver.  16.)  '  For 
not  as  it  was  by  one  that  sinned,  so  is  the  gift :  for  the  judgment  was 
by  one  offence  to  condemnation  ;  but  the  free-gift  is  of  many  offences 
unto  justification.'  In  this  respect,  first,  the  free-gift  by  Christ,  'hath 
abounded  much  more'  than  the  loss  by  Adam.  And  in  this,  secondly, 
ver.  17,  *  If  by  one  man's  offence,  death  spiritual  and  temporal, 
leading  to  death  eternal  reigned  by  one'  over  his  whole  posterity. 
'  much  more  they  who  receive  the  abundance  of  grace  and  of  the 
gift  of  righteousness,'  the  free-gift  of  justification  and  sanctification, 
•shall  REIGN  in  life'  everlasting  '  by  one,  Jesus  Christ.'  Let  any 
one  who  calmly  and  impartially  reads  this  passage  judge,  if  this  be 
not  the  plain,  natural  meanina:  of  it. 

But  let  us  now  observe  your  comment  upon  it.  "  Here  the  Apos- 
tle asserts  a  grace  of  God,  which  already  hath  abounded,  beyond  the 
effects  of  Adam's  sin  upon  us."  (p.  239.)  It  has,  upon  them  that  are 
justified  and  sanctified  ;  but  not  upon  all  mankind. — "  And  which  has 
respect,  not  to  his  one  offence :" — Not  to  that  only, — "  but  also  to  the 
many  offences  which  men  have  personally  committed. — Not  to  the 
DEATH  which  REIGNED  by  him." — Yes,  verily:  but  over  and  above 
the  removal  of  this,  it  hath  also  respect  "to  the  life  in  which  theij 
n'ho  receive  the  abounding  grace  shall  reign  with  him  for  ever." 

Thus  far  you  have  proved  just  nothing.  But  you  go  on,  "  the  death 
consequent  on  Adam's  sin,  is  reversed  by  the  redemption  in  Christ. 
But  this  is  not  tiie  whole  end  of  it  by  far.  The  grand  reason  and 
end  of  redemption  is,  '  the  grace  of  God,  and  the  gift  by  grace." 
Infallibly  it  is  ;  but  this  is  not  a  different  thing,  but  precisely  the  same 
with  tlie  free-gift.  Consequently  your  whole  structure  raised  on  the 
supposition  of  that  difference,  is  a  mere  castle  in  the  air.  But  if  the 
gift  by  grace,  and  the  free-gift  are  the  very  same  thing,  and  if  the  gifi 
by  grace  is  "  the  grand  reason  and  end  of  redemption,"  then  our  fall 


252  THE   DOCTKnVE   OF  [pART  H.    §  3, 


# 


In  Adam,  to  which  you  allow  the  free-gift  directly  refers,  is  "  the  rea- 
son of  Christ's  coming  into  the  world." 

"  But  the  Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament  (excepting  Rom.  v. 
12—19.  and  1  Cor.  xv.  2J,  22.)  always  assign  the  actual  wickedness 
of  mankind  as  the  reason  of  Christ's  coming  into  the  world."  (p. 
340.)  They  generally  do  assign  this,  their  outward  and  inward 
wickedness.  But  this  does  not  exclude  the  wickedness  of  their  na- 
ture, springing  from  their  fall  in  Adam.  Rather  this,  which  is  ex- 
pressed in  those  two  places  at  least,  is  presupposed  in  all  places. 
Particularly  in  tlie  beginning  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  where 
he  describes  the  enormous  wickedness  both  of  the  Jews  and  Gentiles. 
"  It  is  true,*  he  begins  his  discourse  with  an  account  of  the  actual 
transgressions  of  the  idolatrous  Gentiles.  Afterwards,  chap.  iii.  he 
treats  of  the  depravity  and  corrupdon  of  all  mankind  :  and  then  pro- 
ceeds, chap.  V.  to  show,  that  we  are  all  made  sinners  by  Adam,  and 
that  '  by  his  otfence  judgment  is  come  upon  all  men  to  condemna- 
tion.' "  The  Apostle's  method  is  clear  and  natural.  He  begins  with 
that  which  is  most  obvious,  even  actual  sin ;  and  then  proceeds  to 
speak  of  original  sin,  as  the  joint  cause  of  the  necessity  of  redemp- 
tion for  all  men.  But  which  way  can  we  infer,  that  because  he  be- 
gins with  the  mention  of  actual  sins,  in  order  to  demonstrate  the  ne- 
cessity of  redemption,  therefore  he  excludes  original  out  of  the  ac- 
count ?  Neither  can  we  infer,  that  because  it  is  not  expressly  men- 
tioned in  other  texts,  (p.  241.)  therefore  it  is  not  implied. 

"But  the  Redeemer  himself  saith  not  oiie  word  of  redeeming  us 
from  the  corruption  of  nature  derived  from  Adam.  (p.  242.)  And 
seeing  he  spake  exactly  according  to  the  commission  which  the  Fa- 
ther gave  him,  we  may  safely  conclude,  it  was  no  part  of  his  commis- 
sion to  preach  the  doctrine  of  original  sin."  Just  as  safely  may  we 
conclude,  that  it  was  no  part  of  his  commission,  to  teach  and  make 
known  to  men,  tlie  many  things  which  he  had  to  say  to  his  Apostles 
before  his  death,  which  they  could  not  then  bear,  (John  xvi.  12.)  but 
which  according  to  his  promise,  he  afterwards  taught  them  by  his 
Spirit,  and  by  them  to  the  world.  It  makes  no  difference  as  to  the 
ground  of  our  faitli,  whether  a  doctrine  was  delivered  by  Christ  him- 
self or  by  his  Apostles  :  and  whether  it  be  written  in  any  of  the  four 
gospels,  or  of  the  divine  epistles.  There  is  only  this  dilference.  The 
epistles  were  written  after  the  resurrection  and  ascension  of  Christ. 
Therefore  after  the  full  commencement  of  the  gospel  dispensation  : 
whereas  the  discourses  of  Christ  recorded  in  the  gospels,  were  de- 
livered before  the  gospel  dispensation  was  properly  begun.  There- 
fore we  are  to  look  for  the  peculiar  doctrines  of  Christ,  rather  in  the 
Epistles  than  in  the  Gospels.  However  Christ  did  speak  of  this,  and 
I'eferred  to  it  more  dian  once  during  his  personal  ministry  :  particu- 
larly in  his  discourse  with  Nicodemus,  and  Matt,  xxiii.  But  it  is  not 
surprising,  that  he  did  not  speak  so  largely,  of  redeeming  us  from  sin, 
original  or  actual,  by  the  price  of  his  blood,  before  that  price  was 
actually  paid,  as  the  Apostles  did  afterward.      He  considered  the 

*  Vindication,  p.  116,  &c. 


PART  II.    §  3.]  OKIGINAL   SIN.  253 

littleness  of  their  knowledge,  with  the  violence  of  their  prejudices. 
Therefore  we  have  no  cause  to  be  surprised,  that  no  more  is  said  on 
this  head  in  those  discourses  which  Christ  delivered  before  his  death. 
But  to  us  he  has  told  it  plainly,  and  we  do  find  the  doctrines  of  original 
sin  and  redemption  from  it  by  Jesus  Christ,  distinguished  emphatically 
in  almost  every  page  of  the  inspired  Epistles.' 

To  sum  up  this :  1.  Christ  speaks  very  sparingly  of  many  things, 
whereof  his  Apostles  have  spoken  largely :  2  Yet  he  does  speak  of 
tiie  corruption  of  our  nature,  (which  St.  Paul  expressly  tells  us  is 
derived  from  Adam,)  particularly  in  the  23d  of  St.  Matthew  and  the 
3d  of  St.  John.  3.  Wherever  he  speaks  of  saving  that  ivhich  ivaslost, 
he  in  effect  speaks  of  this:  especially  Matt,  xviii.  11,  where  he  men- 
tions little  children  as  lost :  which  could  not  be  by  actual  sin  •  4.  There 
was  the  less  need  of  our  Lord's  speaking  much  on  this  head,  because 
it  was  so  fully  declared  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  was  not  question- 
ed by  any  of  those  false  teachers,  against  whom  he  was  chiefly  con- 
cerned to  warn  his  disciples. 

You  add,  "  It  has  been  delivered  as  a  fundamental  truth,  that  no 
man  will  come  to  Christ,  the  Second  Adam,  who  is  not  first  thoroughly 
convinced  of  the  several  things  he  lost  in  the  first  Adam."  (p.  243.) 
This  is  a  fundamental  truth  ;  none  will  come  to  Christ  as  a  Redeem- 
er, till  he  is  thoroughly  convinced,  he  wants  a  Redeemer.  No  man 
ever  will  come  to  him  as  a  Saviour,  till  he  knows  and  feels  himself  fi 
lost  sinner.  None  will  come  to  the  physician,  but  they  that  we  sick, 
and  are  thoroughly  sensible  of  it :  that  are  deeply  convinced  of  their 
sinful  tempers,  as  well  as  sinful  words  and  actions.  And  these  tem- 
pers they  well  know  were  antecedent  to  their  choice,  and  came  into 
the  world  with  them.  So  far  "  every  man  who  comes  to  Christ,  is 
first  convinced  of  the  several  things  he  lost  by  Adam,"  though  he  may 
not  clearly  know  the  source  of  that  corruption  which  he  sees  and 
feels  in  his  own  heart  and  life.  "  But  why  does  our  Lord  never 
mention  Adam,  or  the  corruption  of  our  nature  through  him  ?"  He 
does  mention  this  corruption,  and  he  presupposes  it  in  all  his  public 
discourses.  He  does  not  mention  it  largely  and  explicitly,  for  the 
reasons  above  recited.  "  But  tlie  Apostles  are  wholly  silent  on  this 
head,  in  their  sermons  recorded  in  the  Acts  :  and  in  their  Epistles 
too."  (p.  243,  244.)  Are  they  wholly  silent  in  their  Epistles  ?  This 
is  a  violeni  mistake.  And  as  to  their  sermons,  it  maybe  observed. 
1.  That  we  h.ive  not  one  whole  sermon  of  any  one  Apostle,  recorded 
in  the  Acts :  nor,  it  may  be,  the  twentieth  part  of  one.  2.  That  it 
was  not  needful  for  them  to  prove,  what  none  of  their  hearers  denied  : 
— No,  not  even  the  Heathens :  even  these  allowed  the  corruption  of 
human  nature.     Even  these  received  it  as  an  undeniable  fact, 

"  Viliis  nano  sine  nascitur.'" 
No  man  is  born  without  vices. 

These  acknowledged  (as  Seneca  expresses)  Omnia  in  omnibus  vitia 
sunt :  All  vices  are  in  all  men.  These  saw,  there  were  hardly  any 
good  men  to  be  found  upon  the  face  of  the  earth  :  and  openly  testi- 
fied it. 

Vol.  9.— Y 


254  THE   DOCTRINE   OF  [PART  II.    §  3, 

Rari  quippe  boni,  numero  vix  sunt  tolidem  quot 
Theharum  porta,  vel  divitis  oslia  M^li : 

The  good  lie  scatter'd  in  this  barren  soil, 

Few  as  tbe  gates  of  Thebes,  or  mouths  of  Nile. 

They  had  also  among  them  some  faint  account  of  the  cause  of  that 
overflowing  corruption.  So  Horace,  immediately  after  he  had  assert- 
ed the  fact, 

Aitdax  omnia  perpeti 
Gens  humana  ruitper  vetitum  nefas : 
Lawless,  and  tinrestrain'd,  the  human  race. 
Rushes  through  all  the  paths  of  daring  wickedness  : 

Glances  at  the  cause  of  it,  in  their  fabulous  manner, 

Audax  Japeti  genus 
Jgnem  fraxide  mala  gentibus  iniulit  : 

Post  ignem  (ttherea  domo 
Subducliim,  macies,  et  nova  febrium 

Terris  incubuit  cohors : 
Semotique  prius  tarda  necessitas 
Lelhi  corripuil  graduju. 
Vrometheus  Crst  provok'd  the  heavenly  sire, 
Purloining  Jupiter's  authentic  fire: 
Evil,  from  hence  deriv'd,  and  brooding  pain. 
And  strange  disease  with  all  the  ghastly  train, 
Pour'd  in  upon  the  wretched  sons  of  men  : 
While  hasty  Fate  quicken'd  the  ling'ring  pace 
Of  distant  death,  unveil'd  the  monster's  face. 
And  gave  into  his  hands  our  whole  devoted  race. 

I  observe,  3.  It  was  neither  needful  nor  proper,  for  an  Apostle  in 
his  first  sermon  to  a  congregation  wholly  unawakened,  to  descant 
upon  original  sin.  No  man  of  common  sense  would  do  it  now. 
Were  I  to  preach  to  a  certain  congregation  at  Norwich,  I  should  not 
say  one  word  of  Adam,  but  endeavour  to  show  them,  that  their  lives, 
and,  therefore,  their  hearts,  were  corrupt  and  abominable  before  God. 

You  conclude  this  head,  "Guilt  imputed,  is  imaginary  guilt,  and 
;^o  no  object  of  redemption."  I  dare  not  say  so  as  to  my  own  par- 
ticular. I  pray  God,  of  his  tender  mercy,  to  free  me  from  this  and 
all  other  guilt,  '  through  the  redemption  which  is  in  Jesus  Christ !' 

II.  Regeneration. 

"  Why  must  we  be  born  again  ?"  (p.  245.)  (You  subjoin  the  com- 
mon, but,  as  you  suppose,  absurd  answer ;)  "  because  we  are  born  in 
/in :  nature  is  averse  to  all  good  and  inclined  to  all  evil.  Therefore 
^ve  must  be  born  again,  before  we  can  please  God." 

In  order  to  confute  this,  you  assert,  "  Then  it  cannot  be  our  duty, 
to  be  born  again  ;  nor  consequently  our  fault,  if  we  are  not :  because 
It  is  not  in  our  power."  It  is,  by  grace,  though  not  by  nature.  By 
this  we  may  all  be  born  again.  Therefore  it  is  our  duty :  and  if  we 
fall  short  herein,  it  is  our  own  fault. 

"But  being  born  again  does  really  signify,  the  gaining  those  habils 
of  virtue,  which  make  us  children  of  God."  (p.  246.)  Then  St. 
Paul  ought  to  have  said,  Not  '  ye  are  all  the  children  of  God,  by 
faith  in  Christ  Jesus :'  but  '  ye  are  all  the  children  of  God,  by  gain- 
ing habits  of  virtue!' 


PART  ir.    §  3.]  ORIGINAL  SIN.  255 

Nay,  but  according  to  the  whole  tenor  of  Scripture,  the  being  born 
again  does  really  signify  the  being  inwardly  changed  by  the  Almighty 
operation  of  the  Spirit  of  God  ;  changed  from  sin  to  holiness  :  re- 
newed in  the  image  of  him  that  created  us.  And  why  must  we  be  so 
changed  ?  Because  '  without  holiness  no  man  shall  see  the  Lord  :' 
and  because  without  this  change,  all  our  endeavours  after  holiness  are 
ineffectual.  God  hath  indeed  "  endowed  us  with  understanding,  and 
given  us  abundant  means."  But  our  understanding  is  as  insufficient 
for  that  end,  as  are  the  outward  means,  if  not  attended  with  inward 
power. 

You  proceed  to  explain  yourself  at  large.  "  Christ  informs  us, 
That  '  except  a  man  be  born  again,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of 
God;'  and  thereby  teaches  us,  I.  "  That  God  hath  erected  a  king- 
dom, united  in  and  under  him,  for  his  glory,  and  men's  mutual  happi- 
ness." (p.  247.)  II.  "  He  will  finally  admit  none  into  it,  who  are 
not  disposed  to  relish  and  promote  the  happiness  of  h."  (p.  248 ) 
(Both  these  propositions  I  willingly  allow.)  III.  "  All  wickedness 
is  quite  contrary  to  the  nature  and  end  of  this  kingdom.  Therefore 
no  wicked  men  can  be  fit  members  of  it,  unless  there  be  a  full  per- 
suasion, that  reverence,  love,  and  obedience,  are  due  to  God :"  (I 
add,  and  unless  it  be  actually  paid  him  :  otherwise  that  persuasion  but 
increases  our  condemnation  :;  "  Unless  his  favour  is  preferred  before 
all  other  enjoyments  whatsoever :  unless  there  be  a  delight  in  the  wor- 
ship of  God,  and  in  converse  with  him :  unless  every  appetite  be 
brought  into  subjection  to  reason,"  (add,  and  reason  to  the  word  of 
God:)  "  How  can  any  man  be  fit  to  dwell  with  God,  or  to  do  him 
service  in  his  kingdom  1" 

IV.  "  It  is  one  thing  to  be  born  into  God's  creation,  another  to  be 
born  into  his  peculiar  kingdom.  In  order  to  an  admittance  into  l}is 
peculiar  kingdom,  it  is  not  enough  for  an  intelligent  being  to  exist." 
■(p.  250,  251.)  I  do  not  know  that.  Perhaps  it  is  not  possible,  for 
(iod  to  crci.te  an  intelligent  being,  without  creating  it  duly  subject  (o 
himself,  thai  is,  a  subject  of  his  peculiar  kingdom.  It  is  highly  pro- 
bable, the  holy  angels  were  subjects  of  his  peculiar  kingdom,  from 
the  first  moment  of  their  existence.  Therefore  the  following  peremp- 
tory assertion,  and  all  of  the  like  kind,  are  wholly  groundless.  "  It 
is  absolutely  necessary,  before  any  creature  can  be  a  subject  of  this, 
that  it  learn  to  employ  and  exercise  its  power^,  suitably  to  the  nature 
of  them."  It  is  not  necessary  at  all.  In  this  sense  surely,  God 
'may  do  what  he  will  with  his  own.'  He  may  bestow  his  owii 
blessings  as  he  pleases.     '  Is  thine  eye  evil,  because  he  is  good  T 

The  premises  then  being  gone,  what  becomes  of  the  conclusion  ? 
"  So  that  the  being  born  into  God's  peculiar  kingdom,  depends  upon 
a  right  use  and  application  of  our  life  and  being :  and  is  the  privilege 
only  of  those  wise  men  whose  spirits  attain  to  a  habit  of  true  holiness." 

This  stands  without  any  proof  at  all.  At  best,  therefore,  it  is  ex- 
tremely doubtful.  But  it  must  appear  extremely  absurd  to  those,  who 
believe  God  can  create  spirits,  both  wise  and  holy  :  that  he  can  stamp 
any  creature  with  what  measure  of  holiness  he  sees  good,  at  the  fii-st 
moment  of  its  existence. 


356  THE  DocraiXE  of  [part  II,  §  S, 

The  occasion  of  your  running  into  this  absurdity  seems  to  be,  that 
you  stumbled  at  the  very  threshold.  In  the  text  under  consideration 
our  Lord  mentions  two  things,  the  neiv-birth  and  the  kingdom  of  God. 
These  Jwo  your  imagination  blended  into  one :  i)i  consequence  ol' 
ivhich  you  run  on  with  "born  into  his  kingdom,"  (a  phrase  never 
used  by  our  Lord,  nor  any  of  his  Apostles,)  and  a  heap  of  other  crude 
expressions  of  the  same  kind  :  all  betraying  that  confasedness  of  thought, 
u'hich  alone  could  prevent  your  usual  clearness  of  language. 

Just  in  the  same  manner  you  go  on.  "  Our  first  parents  in  Para- 
diise  were  to  form  their  minds  to  an  habitual  subjection  to  the  law  of 
(xod,  without  which  they  could  not  be  received  into  his  spiritual  king- 
dom." (p.  252,  253.)  This  runs  upon  the  same  mistaken  supposition. 
ihat  God  could  not  create  them  holy.  Certainly  he  could  and  did  : 
and  from  the  very  moment  that  they  were  created,  their  minds  were 
in  subjection  to  the  law  of  God,  and  they  were  members  of  his  spirit- 
ual kingdom. 

"But  if  Adam  was  originally  perfect  in  holiness,"  (say,  perfectly 
holy,  made  in  the  moral  image  of  God,)  "what  occasion  was  there 
for  any  farther  trial  ?"  That  there  might  be  room  for  farther  holiness 
and  happiness :  entire  holiness  does  not  exclude  growth  :  nor  did  the 
right  state  of  all  his  faculties  entitle  him  to  that  full  reward,  which 
would  have  followed  the  right  use  of  them. 

"  Upon  the  whole,  regeneration,  or  gaining  habits  of  holiness,  takes 
in  no  part  of  the  doctrine  of  original  sin."  (p.  254.)  But  regenera- 
iion  is  not  "  gaining  habits  of  holiness  :"  it  is  quite  a  different  thing. 
It  is  not  a  natural,  but  a  supernatural  change  ;  and  is  just  as  different 
Irom  the  gradual  "  gaining  habits,"  as  a  child's  behig  born  into  the 
world  is,  from  his  growing  up  into  a  man.  The  neic-birth  is  not,  (as 
you  suppose,)  the  progress,  or  the  whole  of  sanctification,  but  the  be- 
ginning of  it ;  as  the  natural  birth  is  not  the  whole  of  life,  but  only 
tlie  entrance  upon  it.  He  that  is  born  of  a  woman,  then  begins  to 
live  a  natural  life  ;  he  that  is  born  of  God,  then  begins  to  live  a  spirit- 
ual. And  if  every  man  born  of  a  woman  had  spiritual  life  already, 
he  would  not  need  to  be  born  of  God. 

"  However,  I  allow  the  Spirit  of  God  assists  our  endeavours.  But 
this  does  not  suppose  any  natural  pravity  of  our  minds."  (p.  255.) 
Does  not  his  quickening  then  suppose  we  were  dead  ?  His  opening 
our  eyes,  suppose  we  were  blind  F  And  his  creating  us  anew,  imply 
something  more  than  the  assisting  our  endeavours  ••'  How  very  slen- 
der a  part  in  sanctification  will  you  allow  to  the  Spirit  of  God  ^  You 
seem  very  fearful  of  doing  him  too  much  honour,  of  taking  from  man 
die  glory  due  to  his  name  ! 

Accordingly  you  say,  "  His  aids  are  so  far  from  supposing  the 
previous  inaptitude  of  our  minds,"  (to  the  being  born  again,)  "that 
our  previous  desire  of  the  Spirit's  assistance,  is  the  condition  of  our 
receiving  it."  But  who  gave  us  that  desire?  Is  it  not  God  'that 
worketh  in  us  to  will,'  to  desire,  as  well  as  '  to  do  V  His  grace  does 
accompany  and  follow  our  desires :  but  does  it  not  also  prevent,  go  be- 
fore them  ?  After  this,  we  may  ask  and  seek  farther  assistance  :  ami 
if  we  do^  not  otherwise,  it  is  given. 


VAllT  11.    §  3.]  ORIGINAL   SIN.  257 

I  cannot  but  add  a  few  words  from  Dr.  Jennings.  (Vind.  p.  125.) 
"  Dr.  Taylor  believes  *  the  influence  of  the  Spirit  of  God  to  assist 
our  sincere  endeavours,  is  spoken  of  in  the  gospel,  but  never  as  sup- 
posing any  natural  pravity  of  our  minds.'  But  certain  it  is,  that 
Christ  opposeth  our  being  '  born  of  the  Spirit,'  to  our  being  'born 
of  the  flesh  :  that  which  is  born  of  the  flesh,  is  flesh  ;  and  that  which 
is  born  of  die  Spirit,  is  spirh.'  John  iii.  6.  Therefore  the  influence 
of  the  Spirit  in  regeneration,  sup})oseth  something  that  we  are  born 
with,  which  makes  such  an  influence  necessary  to  our  being  '  born 
again.'  And  if  this  be  not  some  natural  pravity,  let  our  author  tell 
us  what  it  is.  It  is  plain,  it  is  not  any  ill  habit  afterward  acquired  ; 
for  it  is  something  that  we  are  bor^i  with.  And  if  to  be  '  born  of  the 
llesh,'  means  only  to  have  the  parts  and  powers  of  a  man :  and  if 
these  parts  and  powers  are  all  pure  and  uncorrupted,  ^ve  have  no 
need  of  any  such  influence  of  the  Spirit,  to  be  superadded  to  our 
natural  powers.  Without  this,  our  own  sincere  endeavours  will  suf- 
fice, for  attaining  all  habits  of  virtue." 

I  proceed  to  your  conclusion,  "  Is  it  not  highly  injurious  to  the 
God  of  our  nature,  whose  hands  have  formed  and  fashioned  us,  to 
believe  our  nature  is  originally  corrupted  ?"  (p.  256.)  It  is  :  but  the 
charge  falls  not  on  iis,  but  you.  We  do  not  believe  "  our  nature  is 
originally  corrupted."  It  is  you  who  believe  this :  who  believe  our 
nature  to  be  in  the  same  state,  moral  and  intellectual,  as  it  was  oiigin- 
idly.  Highly  injurious  indeed  is  this  supposition  to  the  God  of  our 
nature.  Did  he  originally  give  us  such  a  nature  as  this  ?  So  like 
that  of  'a  wild  ass's  colt?'  So  stupid,  so  stubborn,  so  intractable  ! 
So  prone  to  evil !  Averse  to  good !  Did  '  his  hands  form  and 
lasliion  us  thus  ?'  No  wiser  or  better  than  men  at  present  are  ?  If 
1  believed  this,  that  men  were  orignMlly  what  they  are  now ;  if  you 
could  once  convince  me  of  this,  I  could  not  go  so  far  as  to  be  a  De- 
ist :  I  must  either  be  a  Manichee,  or  an  Atheist.  I  must  either  believe, 
ihere  was  an  evil  God,  or  that  there  was  no  God  at  all. 

"  But  to  disparage  our  nature  is  to  disparage  the  work  and  gifts  of 
God."  (p.  257.)  True  :  but  to  describe  the  corruption  of  our  nature 
as  it  is,  is  not  disparaging  the  work  of  God.  For  that  corruption  is 
not  his  work.  On  the  other  hand,  to  say  it  is,  to  say  God  created  us 
as  corrupt  as  we  are  now,  with  as  weak  an  understanding  and  as  per- 
verse a  will :  this  is  disparaging  the  work  of  God,  and  God  himself 
to  some  purpose ! 

"  But  doth  not  this  doctrine  teach  you  to  transfer  your  wickedness 
and  sin  to  a  wrong  cause  1  Whereas  you  ought  to  blame  yourself 
alone,  you  lay  the  whole  blame  upon  Adam."  (p.  258.)  I  do  not. 
I  know  God  is  willing  to  save  me  from  all  sin,  both  original  and 
actual.  Therefore  if  I  am  not  saved,  I  must  lay  the  v/hole  blame 
upon  myself 

"  But  what  good  end  does  this  doctrine  promote  ?"  The  doctrine, 
that  wc  arc  by  nature,  '  dead  in  sin,'  and  therefore  '  children  of 
wrath,'  promotes  repentance,  a  true  knowledge  of  ourselves,  and 
thereby  leads  to  faith  in  Christ,  to  a  true  knowledge  of  Christ  cruci- 
fied.    And  faith  worketh  love  ;  and  by  love,  all  holiness  both  of  heart 


258  THE   D0CTRI5E    Or  [part  II.    §  3. 

and  life.  Consequently,  this  doctrine  pFomotes  (nay,  and  is  abso- 
lutely, indispensably  necessary  to  promote)  the  whole  of  that  religion 
which  the  Son  of  God  lived  and  died  to  establish. 

"  We  are  told  indeed,  that  it  promotes  humility.  But  neither  our 
Lord,  nor  his  Apostles,  when  inculcating  humility,  say  a  word  about 
natural  corruption."  Supposing  (not  granting)  that  they  did  not,  yet 
it  cannot  be,  in  the  very  nature  of  the  thing,  that  any  whose  nature 
is  corrupt  should  be  humble,  should  know  himself,  without  knowing 
that  corruption. 

"  But  what  can  be  more  destructive  to  virtue,  than  to  represent  sirs 
as  altogether  unavoidable  ?"  (p.  259.)  This  does  not  follow  from 
the  doctrine.  Corrupt  as  we  are,  through  Almighty  grace  we  may 
avoid  all  sin. 

But  it  is  destructive  of  virtue.  For  "  if  we  believe  we  are  by 
nature  worse  than  the  brutes,  what  wonder  if  we  act  worse  than 
brutes  ?"  Yea,  if  we  are  so,  what  wonder  if  we  act  so  !  And  this 
it  is  absolutely  certain  men  do,  whether  they  believe  one  way  or  the 
other.  For  they  who  do  not  believe  this,  live  no  better  than  those 
that  do.  Therefore  if  "  the  generality  of  Christians  iiave  been  the 
most  wicked,  lewd,  bloody,  and  treacherous  of  all  mankind,"  it  is 
not  owing  to  this  belief  But  in  truth  they  have  not  been  so ;  nei- 
ther are  they  at  this  day.  The  generality  of  Christians,  so  called, 
are  perhaps  but  little  better,  yet  surely  they  are  no  worse,  either  in 
tempers  or  actions,  than  the  rest  of  mankind.  The  generality  of 
Jews,  yea,  of  Turks  and  Pagans,  are  full  as  "  lewd,  bloody,  and 
treacherous"  as  they. 

You  go  on,  "  It  is  surprising,  that  Christians"  (you  mean,  those 
of  tiiem  who  believe  original  sin)  "  have  lost  even  a  sense  of  the  be- 
neficence of  God,  in  giving  them  a  rational  nature."  (p.  260.)  Nay, 
surely  Christians  have  lost  that  rational  nature  itself,  or  they  retain  it 
to  very  Ihtle  purpose,  if  "  the  generality  of  them  are  the  most  wicked, 
lewd,  bloody,  and  treacherous,  of  all  mankind  !"  They  ought  "  to 
be  humbled,"  for  yielding  to  those  evil  propensities,  which  through 
the  grace  of  God  tliey  may  conquer.  And  they  who  do  conquer, 
ought  to  be  continually  "  thanking  God,"  for  this  and  all  his  benefits. 

With  great  dece;;i-y  you  proceed,  "  Who  can  believe  that  to  be  a 
revelation  from  God.  \vhich  teacheth  so  absurd  a  doctriiie  V  I  make 
no  doubt  this  with  other  like  principles,  have  filled  our  land  with  In- 
fidels." However,  the  gentlemen  who  disclaim  these  absurd  prin- 
ciples, of  ariginal  sm,  redemption,  and  regeneration,  may  very  easily 
convert  those  Infidels  :  since  there  is  scarcely  any  room  for  conten- 
tion left  between  them. 

"  Is  not  this  doctrijie  hurtful  to  the  power  of  godliness,  as  it  diverts 
men  from  the  heavenly  and  substantial  truths  of  religion  ?"  (p.  261.) 
..Tust  the  reverse.  There  is  no  possibility  of  the  power  of  godliness 
without  it.  The  power  of  godliness  consists  in  the  love  of  God  and 
man :  This  is  heavenly  and  substantial  religion.  But  no  man  can 
possibly  '  love  his  neighbour  as  himself,'  till  he  loves  God.  And  no 
man  can  possibly  love  God  till  he  truly  believes  in  Christ,  till  he  is 
deeply  convinced  of  his  own  sinfulness,  guiltiness,  and  helplessness. 


TART  III.    §   1.  ORIGINAL   SI5r.  250 

But  this  no  man  ever  was,  neither  can  be,  wlio  does  not  know  he  has 
a  corrupt  nature. 

This  doctrine  therefore  is  the  "  most  proper"  of  all  others,  "  to 
be  instilled  into  a  child :"  that  it  is  by  nature  a  child  of  vjrath,  under 
the  guilt  and  under  the  power  of  sin :  that  it  can  be  saved  from 
wrath,  only  by  the  merits,  and  sufferings,  and  love  of  the  Son  of 
God  :  that  it  can  be  delivered  from  the  power  of  sin,  only  by  the  in- 
spiration of  his  Holy  Spirit :  but  that  by  his  grace  it  may  be  renewed 
in  the  image  of  God,  perfected  in  love,  and  made  meet  for  glory. 

But  "  must  it  not  lessen  the  due  love  of  parents  to  children,  to  be- 
lieve they  are  the  vilest  creatures  in  the  world  V  (p.  262,  263.)  Far 
from  it ;  if  they  know  how  God  loves  both  them  and  their's,  vile 
and  sinful  as  they  are.  And  it  is  a  certain  fact,  that  no  parents 
love  their  children  more  tenderly,  than  those  who  firmly  believe  this 
doctrine  :  and  that  none  are  more  careful  to  '  bring  them  up  in  the 
nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord.' 

But  "  how  can  young  people  remember  their  Creator  without  hor- 
ror, if  he  has  given  them  life  under  such  deplorable  circumstances  *?" 
They  can  remember  him  with  pleasure,  with  earnest  thankfulness, 
when  they  reflect  out  of  what  a  pit  he  hath  brought  them  up :  and  that 
if  sin  abounded,  both  by  nature  and  habit,  grace  did  much  more  abound. 

You  conclude,  "  Why  should  we  subject  our  consciences  to  tales 
and  fables,  invented  by  priests  and  monks  ?"  (p.  264.)  This  fable, 
as  you  term  it,  of  original  sin,  could  not  be  invented  by  Romish 
priests  or  monks  :  because  it  is  by  many  ages  older  than  either;  yea, 
than  Christianity  itself 

I  have  now  weighed,  as  my  leisure  would  permit,  all  the  arguments 
advanced  in  your  three  parts.  And  this  I  have  done  with  continual 
prayer,  that  I  might  know  '  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus.'  But  still  I  see 
no  ground  to  alter  my  sentiments,  touching  the  general  corruption  of 
human  nature.  Nor  can  I  find  any  better  or  any  other  way,  of  ac- 
counting for  that  general  wickedness,  which  has  prevailed  in  all  na- 
tions, and  through  all  ages,  nearly  from  the  beginning  of  the  world 
to  this  day. 

TiEwisiiAM,  Jan.  25,  1757. 


PART  III. 


AN  ANSWER  TO  DR.  TAYLOR's  SUPPLEMENT. 

VOU  subjoin  to  your  book  a  very  large  Supplement,  in  answer 
to  Dr.  Jennings  and  Dr.  Watts.  All  that  they  have  advanced,  I  am 
not  engaged  to  defend  ;  but  such  parts  only  as  affect  the  merits  of  the 
trause. 

You  divide  this  part  of  your  work  into  eight  sections.  The  first 
treats 


j20O  THE    DOCTRINE    OF  [PART  IH.    ^   i. 

OF    IMPUTED    GUILT. 

And  here  you  roundly  affirm,  "  No  action  is  said  in  Scripture  to  be 
imputed  to  any  person  for  righteousness  or  condemnation,  but  the 
proper  act  and  deed  of  that  person."* 

Were  then  the  iniquities  and  sins  which  were  put  upon  the  scape- 
goat, his  own  proper  act  and  deed  f  You  answer,  "  Here  was  no  im- 
putation of  sin  to  the  goat.  It  was  only  a  figurative  way  of  signify- 
ing the  removal  of  guilt,  from  the  penitent  Israelites,  by  the  goat's 
going  into  the  wilderness."  But  how  could  it  be  a  figure  of  any  such 
thing,  if  no  guilt  was  imputed  to  him  ? 

'*  Aaron  is  commanded,  to  '  put  the  iniquities  of  Israel'  upon  the 
scape-goat.  (Lev.  xvi  21.)  And  this  goat  is  said  to  '  bear  the  iniqui- 
ties of  the  people.'  (ver.  22.)  This  was  plainly  an  imputation,  i  et 
it  could  not  possibly  be  an  imputation  of  any  thing  done  b}^  the  animal 
itself.  The  effects  also  which  took  place  upon  the  execution  of  the 
ordinance  indicate  a  translation  of  guilt  For  the  congregation  was 
cleansed,  but  the  goat  w&s  polluted.  The  congregation  so  cleansed, 
that  their  iniquities  were  borne  away,  and  to  be  found  no  more:  the 
goat  so  polluted,  that  it  communicated  delilem-ent  to  the  person  who 
conducted  it  into  a  land  not  inhabited  " 

In  truth  the  scape-goat  was  a  figure  of  him,  '  on  whom  the  Lord 
laid  the  iniquities  of  us  all.'  (Isa.  liii.  6.)  '  He  bore  our  iniquity'.' 
(ver.  11.)  '  He  bare  the  sin  of  many.'  (ver.  12.)  The  Prophet  uses 
three  different  words  in  the  original :  oi  which  the  first  does  properly 
signify  the  meeting  together  ;  the  last,  the  lifting  up  a  weight  or  burden. 
This  burden  it  was  which  made  him  '  sweat  as  it-were  great  drops  ol' 
blood  falling  to  the  ground.'  '•  But  iniquity  and  sin  sometimes  signif} 
suffering."  (p.  8,  9.)  Yes  ;  suffering  for  sin,  the  effect  being  put  for 
the  cause.  Accordingly  what  we  meatj  by,  '  our  sins  were  imputed 
to  him,'  is,  he  was  punished  for  them ;  '  he  was  wounded  for  our 
transgressions  -,  he  was  bruised  for  our  iniquities.'  He  '  who  knew 
no  sin,'  but  what  was  thus  imputed,  'w..s  made  sin,'  a  sin  offering 
for  us  :  "  It  pleased  the  Lord"  (your  owii  words)  "  to  bruise  him,  in 
order  to  the  expiation  of  our  sins.''  (p.  10,  11.) 

"  But  with  regard  to  parents  and  their  posterity.  God  assures  us, 
children  '  shall  not  die  for  the  iniquity  of  their  fathers.'  "  No,  not 
eternally.  I  believe  none  ever  did  or  ever  will  die  eternally,  merely 
for  the  sin  of  our  first  father. 

"  But  the  Scripture  never  speaks  of  imputing  any  sin  to  any  per- 
son, but  what  is  the  act  of  that  person."  (p.  13,  14.)  It  was  but  now 
you  yourself  observed,  that  by  "  our  sins  were  imputed  to  Christ," 
we  mean,  "  He  suff'ered  for  them."  Our  sins  then  were  hnputed  to 
Christ.  And  yet  these  sins  were  not  the  act  of  the  person  that  suf- 
fered.    He  did  not  commit  the  sin  which  was  thus  imputed  to  him. 

But  "  no  just  consthution  can  punish  the  innocent."  (p.  16.)  This 
is  undoubtedly  true.  Therefore  God  does  not  look  upon  infants  as 
innocent,  but  as  involved  in  the  guilt  of  Adam's  sin.     Otherwise 

*  Supplement,  p.  7. 


TART  III.    §   I.]  ORIGINAL  SIN.  261 

death,  the  punishment  denounced  against  that  sin,  could  not  be  inflict- 
ed upon  them. 

"  It  is  allowed  the  posterity  of  Ham  and  Gehazi,  and  the  children 
of  Dathan  and  Abiram,  suffered  for  the  sins  of  their  parents."  It  is 
enough.  You  need  allow  no  more.  All  the  world  will  see,  if  they 
suffered  for  them,  then  they  were  punished  for  them.  Yet  we  do  not 
"  confound  punishment  with  suffering-,  as  if  to  suffer  and  to  be  punish- 
ed, were  the  same  thing."  Punishment  is  not  barely  suffering,  but  suf- 
fering for  sin :  To  suffer  and  to  be  punished,  are  not  the  same  thing. 
But  to  suffer  for  sin,  and  to  be  punished  are  precisely  the  same. 

If  therefore  the  children  of  Dathan  and  Abiram  suffered  for  the  sins 
of  their  parents,  which  no  man  can  deny,  then  they  were  punished 
for  them.  Consequently  it  is  not  true,  that  "  iii  the  instances  alleged, 
the  parents  only  were  punished  by  the  sufferings  of  the  children." 
If  the  children  suffered  for  those  sins,  then  they  were  punished  for 
them.  Indeed  sometimes  the  parents  too  were  punished,  by  the  suf- 
ferings of  their  children  ;  which  is  all  that  your  heap  of  quotations 
proves:  and  sometimes  they  were  not.  But  however  this  were  ;  if 
the  children  suffered  for  their  sins,  they  were  punished  for  them. 

It  is  not  therefore  "  evident,  that  in  all  these  cases,  children  are 
considered  not  as  criminals,  involved  in  guilt,  but  as  the  enjoyments 
of  their  parents  who  alone  are  punished  by  their  sufferings."  (p.  18.) 
On  the  contrary,  it  is  very  evident  that  the  children  of  Canaan  were 
punished  for  the  sin  of  Ham ;  and  that  the  children  of  Dathan  and 
Abiram  were  punished  with  death,  as  "  involved  in  the  guilt  of  their 
parents  " 

"  On  the  other  hand,  the  virtues  of  an  ancestor  may  convey  great 
advantages  to  his  posterity.  But  no  man's  posterity  can  be  rewarded 
for  their  ancestor's  virtue."  (p.  21.)  The  point  here  in  dispute  be- 
tween Dr.  Watts  and  you,  is  whether  the  thing,  concerning  which 
you  agreed,  should  be  expressed  by  one  term  or  another  ?  You  both 
agree,  (and  no  man  in  his  senses  can  deny)  that  in  all  ages,  God  has, 
on  account  of  pious  ancestors,  given  many  blessing  to  tlieir  offspring. 
But  he  thinks,  these  blessings  should  be  termed  rewards,  fand  so  do 
all  the  world  ;)  you  say,  they  should  not.  The  fact  is  plain  either 
way  ;  God  does  continually,  and  he  did  in  all  ages,  give  numberless 
blessings  to  the  children,  on  account  of  the  piety  of  their  fathers. 
And  it  is  certain,  blessings  giver-  on  account  of  virtue,  have  been 
hitherto  termed  rewards  both  by  God  and  man. 

You  conclude  this  section,  "  Thus  it  appears,  the  distinction  be- 
tween personal  sin  and  imputed  guilt,  is  without  any  ground  in  Scrip- 
ture."  (p.  22.)  Just  the  contrary  appears,  namely,  that  guilt  was 
imputed  to  the  scape-goat,  to  the  children  o{  wicked  parents,  and  to 
our  blessed  Lord  himself,  without  any  personal  sin.  The  distinction 
therefore  is  sound  and  scriptural. 


'62  THE    DOCTRINE   OF  [PART  III.    §  2- 

SECT.  II. 

Of  the  Mature  and  Design  of  our  Afflictions  and  Mortality. 

THAT  God  designs  to  bring  good  out  of  these  is  certain.  But 
does  this  prove,  they  have  not  the  nature  of  pimishments  ?  Did 
Adam  himself  suffer  any  affliction  ?  Any  toil  or  pain  ?  Doubtless, 
he  did,  long  before  he  returned  to  dust.  And  can  we  doubt,  but  he 
received  spiritual  good  from  that  pain  1  Yet  it  was  a  punishment 
still :  as  really  such,  as  if  it  had  consigned  him  over  to  everlasting 
punishment.  This  argument  therefore  is  of  no  weight  :  "  God 
draws  good  out  of  punishments  :  therefore  they  are  no  punrshm«»ts  at 
all."  However,  then,  the  sufferings  wherein  Adam's  sin  has  involved 
his  whole  posterity,  may  "  try  and  purify  us,  in  order  to  future  and 
everlasting  happiness,"  (p.  23,)  this  circumstance  does  not  alter  their 
nature  :  they  are  punishments  still. 

Let  "  afflictions,  calamities,  and  death  itself,  be  means  of  improv- 
ing in  virtue,"  (p.  24,)  of  healing  or  preventing  sin,  this  is  no  manner 
of  proof,  that  they  are  not  punishments.  W  as  not  God  able  to  heal 
or  prevent  sin,  without  either  pain  or  death  1  Could  not  the  Al- 
mighty have  done  this,  as  easily,  as  speedily,  and  as  effectually, 
without  these  as  with  them  ?  Why  then  did  he  not  T  Why  did 
Adam's  sin  bring  these  on  his  whole  posterity  1  Why  should  one 
man  suffer  for  another  man's  fault  ?  If  you  say,  to  cure  his  own  ;  I- 
ask,  1.  What  necessity  was  there  of  any  suffering  at  all  for  this  1  If 
God  intended  only  to  cure  his  sin,  he  could  have  done  that  without 
any  suffering.  I  ask,  2.  Why  do  infants  suffer  ?  What  sin  have 
they  to  be  cured  thereby  ?  If  you  say,  "  It  is  to  heal  the  sin  of 
their  parents,  who  sympathize  and  suffer  with  them  :"  in  a  thousand 
instances  this  has  no  place  :  the  parents  are  not  the  better,  nor  any 
way  likely  to  be  the  better,  for  all  the  sufferings  of  their  children. 
Their  sufferings  therefore,  yea,  and  those  of  all  mankind,  which  are 
entailed  upon  them  by  the  sin  of  Adam,  are  not  the  result  of  mere 
7nercy  but  of  just ke  also.  In  other  words,  they  have  in  them  the 
nature  of  punishments,  even  on  us  and  on  our  children.  Therefore 
children  themselves  are  not  innocent  before  God.  They  suffer, 
therefore  they  deserve  to  suffer. 

And  here  another  question  arises ;  What  benefit  accrues  to  the 
brute  creation,  from  the  sufferings  wherein  their  whole  race  is  in- 
volved through  the  sin  of  the  first  man  1  The  fact  cannot  be  denied, 
daily  experience  attests  what  we  read  in  the  oracles  of  God,  that 
*  the  whole  creation  groaneth  and  travaileth  in  pain  to  this  day,'  a 
considerable  part  of  it  groans  to  God,  under  the  wantonness  or 
cruelty  of  man.  Their  sufferings  are  caused,  or  at  least  greatly  in- 
creased, by  our  luxury  or  inhumanity  :  nay,  and  by  our  diversions  ! 
We  draw  entertainment  from  the  pain,  the  death  of  other  creatures : 
not  to  mention  several  entire  species,  which  at  present  have  such  na- 


PART  III.    §  2.]  OmOINAL  SIN.  263 

tural  qualities,  that  we  are  obliged  to  inflict  pain,  nay,  perhaps  death 
upon  them,  purely  in  our  own  defence.  And  even  those  species 
which  are  out  of  the  reach  of  men,  are  not  out  of  the  reach  of  suf- 
fering, '  The  lions  do  lack  and  suffer  hunger,'  though  they  are  as 
it  were  sovereigns  of  the  plain.  Do  they  not  acknowledge  this, 
when  *  roaring  for  their  prey,'  they  '  seek  their  meat  from  God  V 
And  what  shall  we  say  of  their  helpless  prey  ?  Is  not  their  lot  more 
miserable  still  ?  Now  what  benefits,  I  say,  have  these  from  their 
sufferings  1  Are  they  also  "  tried  and  purified  thereby  1"  Do  suf- 
ferings "  correct  their  inordinate  passions,  and  dispose  their  minds 
to  sober  reflections  f"  Do  they  "  give  them  opportunity  of  exercis- 
ing kindness  and  compassion,  in  relieving  each  other's  distresses  ?' 
That  I  know  not :  but  I  know  by  this  and  a  thousand  proofs,  that 
when  man,  the  lord  of  the  visible  creation,  rebelled  against  God, 
every  part  of  the  creation  began  to  suffer  on  account  of  his  siii.  And 
to  suffering  on  account  of  sin,  1  can  give  no  properer  name  than  that 
of  punishment. 

"  It  was  to  reclaim  offenders,  that  an  extraordinary  power  was 
exercised,  either  immediately  by  our  Lord  himself,  or  by  his  apostles, 
of  inflicting  bodily  distempers,  and  in  some  cases  death  itself.""  (p. 
25.)  I  do  not  remember  any  more  than  one  single  case  wherein 
one  of  the  apostles  "  inflicted  death."  I  remember  no  instance  re- 
corded in  Scripture,  of  their  "  inflicting  bodily  distempers."  (The 
blindness  inflicted  on  Elimas  cannot  be  so  termed,  without  great  im- 
propriety,) and  certain  I  am,  that  our  Lord  himself  inflicted  neither 
one  nor  the  other. 

The  citations  in  the  next  page  prove  no  more  than  that  we  may 
reap  benefit  from  (ne  punishment  of  others,  (p.  26.)  But  though 
either  we  or  they  reap  benefit  from  them,  yet  they  are  punishments 
still. 

"We  do  not  here  consider  death  and  suffering  as  they  stand  in 
the  threatening  of  the  law."  (p.  27.)  You  are  sensible,  if  we  did, 
all  mankind  must  acknowledge  them  to  be  punishments.  And  this 
is  the  very  light  wherein  Ave  do  and  must  consider  them  in  the  pre- 
sent question.  We  consider  death  and  suffering,  as  they  stand  in 
that  threatening,  '  Thou  shalt  surely  die.'  That  this  was  denounced 
to  all  mankind  we  know,  because  it  is  executed  on  all.  Therefore, 
considering  suffering  and  death  as  so  threatened  and  executed,  we  can- 
not deny,  that  they  are  punishments :  punishments  not  on  Adam 
only,  but  on  all  that  in  fact  do  either  die  or  suffer. 

To  sum  up  this  poijit :  although  the  wisdom  and  mercy  of  God 
do  "bring  good  out  of  evil."  Although  God  designs  to  extract 
blessings  from  punishments,  and  does  it  in  numberless  instances : 
yet  this  does  not  alter  the  nature  of  things,  but  punishments  are  pun- 
ishments still :  still  this  name  properly  belongs  to  all  sufferings, 
which  are  inflicted  on  account  of  sin :  and,  consequently,  it  is  an 
evident  truth,  that  the  whole  animate  creation  is  punished  for  Adam's 
sin. 


264  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  [PART  III.  ^  3. 


SECT.  III. 

The  Argument  taken  from  the  Calamities  and  Sinfulness  of 
JMankindy  considered. 

"  THE  subject  of  our  present  inquiry  is  three-fold.  1.  Whether 
mankind  be  under  God's  displeasure,  antecedently  to  their  actual 
sinsl  2.  Whether  our  nature  be  corrupt,  from  the  beginning  of 
life  ?  And,  3.  Whether  these  propositions  can  be  proved  from  the 
calamities  and  sinfulness  of  mankind  ?"  (p.  30,  31.) 

Whether  they  can  or  not,  they  have  been  fully  proved  from  Scrip- 
ture. Let  us  now  inquire,  if  they  may  not  be  proved  from  the  state 
of  the  world. 

But  you  think.  Dr.  Watts  "  has  here  laid  too  great  stress  on  sup- 
position and  imagination."  In  proof  of  which  you  cite  from  him 
the  following  words  :  "  Can  we  suppose  that  the  blessed  God  would 
place  his  innocent  creatures  in  such  a  dangerous  habitation  1  Can 
we  suppose,  that  among  the  roots,  and  the  herbs,  and  the  trees, 
which  are  good  for  food,  the  great  God  would  have  suffered  deadly 
poison  to  spring  up  here  and  there  ?  Would  there  have  been  any 
such  creatures  in  our  world  as  bears  and  tigers  ?  Can  we  ever  ima- 
gine the  great  and  good  God  would  have  appointed  men  to  be  pro- 
pagated in  such  a  way,  as  would  necessarily  give  such  exquisite 
pain  and  anguish  to  the  mothers  that  produce  them,  if  they  had 
been  all  accounted  in  his  eyes,  a  race  of  holy  and  sinless  beings  1" 
(p.  31.) 

I  answer,  It  is  not  true,  "  that  too  great  stress,"  or  any  stress  at 
all,  is  "  here  laid  on  mere  supposition  and  imagination."  Your 
catching  at  those  two  words,  suppose  and  imagine,  will  by  no  means 
prove  it.  For  the  meaning  of  them  is  plain.  "  Can  we  suppose 
the  blessed  God  would  do  this  1"  is  manifestly  the  same  with,  "  How- 
can  we  reconcile  it  with  his  essential  attributes  V  In  like  manner, 
"  Can  wfc  ever  imagine  V  is  equivalent  with,  "  Can  we  possibly  con- 
ceive ?"  So  that  the  occasional  use  of  these  words  does  not  infer 
his  laying  any  stress  on  supposition  and  imagination.  When,  there- 
fore, you  add,  "  our  suppositions  and  imaginations  are  not  a  just  stan- 
dard by  which  to  measure  the  divine  dispensations,"  (p.  32,)  what 
you  say  is  absolutely  true,  but  absolutely  foreign  to  the  point. 

Some  of  the  questions  which  you  yourself  ask,  to  expose  his,  it  is 
not  so  easy  to  answer.  "  Would  innocent  creatures  have  been 
thrust  into  the  world  in  so  contemptible  circumstances  1  And  have 
been  doomed  to  grow  up  so  slowly  to  maturity  and  the  use  of  reason  1 
Would  they  when  grown  up  have  been  constrained  to  spend  so  mucii 
time  in  low  and  servile  labour  ?  Would  millions  have  been  obliged 
to  spend  all  their  days,  from  early  morn  till  evening,  in  hewing  stone, 
sawing  wood,  heaving,  rubbing,  or  beating  the  limb  of  an  oak,  or  a 
bar  of  iron?'  (p.  33.)     I  really  think,  they  would  not.     I  believr 


PAM'  in.  §  3.J  orhjinal  sin.  '-iOo 

all  this  toil  as  well  as  the  pain  and  anguish  of  women  in  child-birth. 
is  an  evidence  of  the  (all  of  man,  of  the  sin  of  our  first  parents,  and 
part  of  the  punishment  denounced  and  executed  first  on  them,  and 
then  on  all  their  posterity. 

You  add,  "  He  doth  not  consider  this  world  as  a  state  of  trial,  but 
as  if  it  ought  to  have  been  a  seat  of  happiness."  (p.  34,  35.)  There 
is  no  contrariety  between  these  :  it  might  be  a  state  of  trial,  and  oi 
happiness  too.  And  such  it  certainly  was  to  Adam  in  Paradise  : 
whether  he  was  holy  or  not,  he  was  undoubtedly  happy.  A  state  ol 
trial  therefore  does  not  necessarily  imply  any  kind  or  degree  of  na- 
tural evil.  And  accordingly  the  Creator  himself  assures  us,  there 
was  none  originally  in  his  creation.  For  so  1  read  at  the  conclusion 
of  it,  '  And  God  saw  every  thing  that  he  had  made,  and  behold,  it 
was  very  good.'  (Gen.  i.  31.) 

"  But  natural  evil  may  be  mixed  with  a  state  of  trial.  Conse- 
quently this  world  could  not  be  built  for  a  seat  of  happiness."  (p.  36.) 
Admirable  drawing  of  consequences!  "  It  mat/  6e;"  therefore  it 
roulcl  not  be  otherwise.  Whatever  may  he,  God  himself  here  tell;? 
ns,  ivhat  icas.  And  from  his  own  declaration,  it  is  infalliby  certain. 
there  was  no  natural  evil  in  the  world,  till  it  entered  as  the  punish- 
ment of  sin. 

"  Neither  doth  he  take  a  future  state  into  his  representation."  (p, 
36.)  No,  nor  is  there  any  need  he  should,  when  he  is  representing 
the  present  state  of  the  world,  as  a  punishment  of  Adam's  sin.  "  Nor 
doth  he  take  into  his  argument  the  goodness  of  God."  (p.  37.)  Not 
into  this  argument :  that  is  of  after  consideration.  So  the  texts  you 
have  heaped  together  on  this  head  also,  are  very  good.  But  what 
do  they  prove '? 

"  He  supposes  our  sufferings  to  be  mere  punishments."  I  sup- 
pose, they  are  punishments  mixed  with  mercy.  But  still  they  are 
punishments :  they  are  evils  injlicted  on  account  of  sin. 

"  We  find,  in  fact,  that  the  best  of  men  may  be  made  very  unhappy, 
by  calamities  and  oppressions."  (p.  39.)  It  cannot  be.  The  best 
of  men  cannot  be  made  unhappy  by  any  calamities  or  oppressions 
whatsoever.  For  they  'have  learned,  in  every'  possible  'state, 
therewith  to  be  content.'  In  spite  of  all  calamities,  they  '  rejoice 
evermore,  and  in  every  thing  give  thanks.' 

"  From  punishments  inflicted  on  particular  persons,  he  infers  thai 
all  men  are  under  the  wrath  of  God.  But  to  infer  the  state  of  the 
whole  from  the  case  of  some,  is  not  a  fair  way  of  arguing."  (p.  40.) 
No.  The  punishtnents  inflicted  on  particular  persons  prove  nothing, 
but  with  regard  to  those  on  whom  they  are  inflicted.  If,  therefore, 
"ome  men  only  suffer  and  die,  this  proves  nothing  with  regard  to  the 
rest.  But  if  the  lohole  of  mankind  suffer  and  die,  then  the  conclu- 
sion reaches  all  men. 

"  He  is  not  quite  just^  in  pronouncing  the  present  form  of  the 
earth, '  irregular,  abrupt,  and  horrid  ;'  and  asking, '  Doth  it  not  bear 
strongly  on  our  sight,  the  ideas  of  ruin  and  confusion,  in  vast  broken 
mountains,  dreadful  cliffs  and  precipices,  immense  extents  of  Avastc 

Vol.  9.— Z 


W6  THE    DOCTRINE   OF  [PART  JIl.  §  3  ■ 

and  barren  ground?"  (p,  41.)  If  this  be  the  case,  how  can  'the 
invisible  things  of  God  be  clearly  seen  from'  <  such  a  ruined  crea- 
tion ]'  Perfectly  well.  «  His  eternal  power  and  Godhead,'  the  ex- 
istence of  a  poicerful  and  eternal  Being  may  still  be  inferred  from 
these  his  works,  grand  and  magnificent,  though  in  ruin.  Conse- 
quently, these  leave  the  Atheist  without  excuse.  And  whatever  ob- 
jections he  might  form  (as  Lucretius  actually  does?  from  these  pal- 
pable blemishes  and  irregularities  of  the  terraqueous  globe,  the  scrip- 
tural account  of  natural,  flowing  from  moral  evil,  will  easily  and  per- 
fectly solve  them.  All  which  is  well  consistent  with  the  words  o* 
the  Psalmist,  '  O  Lord,  how  manifold  are  thy  works  !  In  wisdom 
hast  thou  made  them  all :  the  earth  is  full  of  thy  riches  !'  So 
undoubtedly  it  is,  though  it  bears  so  visible  signs  of  ruin  and  de- 
vastation. 

"  We  have  no  authority  from  Scripture,  to  say  that  the  earth,  in 
its  present  constitution,  is  at  all  different  from  what  it  was  at  its  first 
creation."  Certainly  we  have,  if  the  Scripture  affirms,  that  God 
said,  after  Adam  sinned,  '  Cursed  is  the  ground  for  thy  sake  ;  thorns 
and  thistles  shall  it  bring  forth  to  thee,'  and,  '  that  the  earth  was  ol 
old,  standing  out  of  the  water,  and  in  the  water,'  till  God  destroyed 
it  for  the  sin  of  its  inhabitants. 

You  go  on.  "  I  cannot  agree,  that  disease,  anguish,  and  death, 
have  entered  into  the  bowels  and  veins  of  multitudes,  by  an  innocent 
and  fatal  mistake,  of  pernicious  plants  and  fruits  for  proper  food.'' 
(p.  43.)  Why  not  1  Doubtless  multitudes  also  have  perished 
hereby,  if  we  take  in  the  account  of  all  ages  and  nations  :  multitudes 
also  have  been  the  hving  prey,  of  bears  and  tigers,  wolves  and  lions : 
and  multitudes  have  had  their  flesh  and  bones  crushed  and  churned 
between  the  jaws  of  panthers  and  leopards,  sharks,  and  crocodiles. 
And  would  these  things  have  come  upon  mankind,  were  it  not  on 
account  of  Adam's  sin  1 

Yet  you  think,  we  have  "  now  a  more  extensive  dominion  over 
all  creatures,  than  Adam  had  even  in  his  innocence  ;  because  wo 
have  the  liberty  of  eating  them  ;  which  Adam  never  had."  (p.  44.  * 
This  will  not  prove  the  point.  That  I  have  the  liberty  to  eat  a  lamb, 
does  not  prove  that  I  have  dominion  over  a  Hon.  Certainly  I  have 
not  dominion  over  any  creature  which  I  can  neither  govern  nor  re- 
sist :  yea,  and  if  the  dread  of  me  is  on  every  beast  and  fowl,  this 
does  not  })rove,  that  I  have  any  dominion  over  them.  I  know,  on 
the  contrary,  that  not  only  a  tiger  or  a  bear,  but  even  a  dove  will 
not  stoop  to  my  dominion. 

"  However,  we  have  no  authority  to  say,  man  himself  was  cursed, 
though  the  ground  was."  (p.  46.)  Yes,  we  have  :  the  authority  of 
God  himself,  '  Cut^sed  is  every  man  that  continueth  not  in  all  things' 
which  God  hath  commanded.  The  moment  therefore  that  he  sin- 
ned, Adam  fell  under  this  curse.  And  whether  the  toil  and  death  to 
which  he  and  his  posterity  were  sentenced,  and  the  pain  of  child- 
birth be  termed  curses  or  not,  sure  it  is  they  are  punishments,  and 
heavy  ones  too,  though  mercy  is  often  mixed  with  judgment. 


PAHT  III.    §  3.]  ORIGINAL  SIIn.  267 

The  main  argument  follows,  taken  from  the  state  of  mankind  in 
general,  with  regard  to  religion.  But  you  say,  "  It  is  impossible  we 
should  make  a  just  estimate  of  the  wickedness  of  mankind  :"  (p.  51.) 
Yes,  an  exactly  just  estimate  of  the  precise  degree  of  wickedness  in 
the  whole  world.  But  it  is  very  possible,  nay,  very  easy,  to  make 
an  estimate  in  the  gross,  with  such  a  degree  of  justness  as  suffices 
for  the  present  question. 

Indeed  you  "  think  we  carry  our  censures  of  the  Heathens  too 
far."  I  dare  not  carry  them  so  far,  as  to  say,  no  Heathen  sliall  be 
saved.  But  this  1  say :  I  never  knew  any  Heathen  yet,  (and  I  have 
personally  known  many  out  of  various  nations,)  who  was  not  a  slave 
to  some  gross  vice  or  other.  Bad  therefore  as  nominal  Christians  are, 
I  cannot  yet  place  them  on  a  level  with  the  Heathens :  not  even 
%vith  the  mild,  courteous,  conversable  Heathens,  who  border  on 
Georgia  and  Carolina.  Much  less  would  I  say,  "  possibly  the  Hea- 
thens may  be  less  vicious  than  the  Christian  world  in  general."  If  i 
believed  this,  I  should  bid  adieu  to  Christianity,  and  commence 
Heathen  without  delay. 

"  But  if  we  allow  mankind  to  be  ever  so  wicked,  suppose  there 
iS  not  one  upon  earth,  who  is  truly  righteous  ;  it  will  not  follow  that 
men  are  naturally  corrupt :  for  a  sinlul  action  does  not  infer  a  sinful 
nature.  If  it  does,  then  Adam  brought  a  sinful  nature  with  him 
into  the  world.  But  if  we  cannot  infer  from  Adam's  sin,  that  his 
nature  was  originally  corrupt,  neither  can  we  infer  from  the  wicked- 
ness of  all  mankind,  be  it  ever  so  great,  that  they  have  a  sinful  na- 
ture." (p,  52,  53.) 

The  consequence  is  not  good.  "  if  one  man's  committing  a  sin 
does  not  prove  that  he  was  naturally  inclined  to  evil,  then  the  wick- 
edness of  all  mankind  for  six  thousand  years,  will  not  prove  that 
they  are  naturally  inclined  to  evil."  For  v/e  may  easily  account  foi 
one  man's  committing  sin,  though  he  was  not  naturally  inclined  to 
evil :  but  not  so  easily,  for  'all  flesh  corrupting  themselves,'  ibr  the 
wickedness  of  all  mankind  in  all  ages.  It  is  not  possible  rationally 
to  account  for  this,  for  the  general  wickedness  of  mankind  ;  for 
such  a  majority  of  men  through  all  generations  being  so  corrupt, 
but  on  the  supposition  of  their  having  a  corrupt  nature.  Sin  in  one 
or  a  few  cases,  does  not  prove  a  siniul  nature  :  but  sin  overspread- 
ing the  earth,  does.  Nor  is  your  argument  drawn  from  the  sin  of 
the  angels,  (p.  54,  55.)  of  any  more  force  than  that  drawn  from  the 
sin  of  Adam :  unless  you  can  prove  that  as  great  a  majority  of  an- 
gels as  of  men,  have  rebelled  against  their  Creator. 

"  Again.  If  our  first  parents  feh  fear  and  shame,  and  yet  their 
nature  was  not  originally  corrupt,  then  it  will  not  follow,  that  ours  is 
so  notwithstanding  our  uneasy  and  unruly  passions."  Empty  sound ! 
Had  any  one  said  to  Adam,  "  Your  nature  was  originally  corrupt, 
for  you  feel  uneasy  and  unruly  passions :"  would  he  not  readily 
have  answered,  but  these  began  at  such  an  hour  ;  till  then  my  na- 
ture was  without  cither  pain  or  corruption.  Apply  this  to  any  child 
of  Adam :  and  if  he  can  answer  in  like  manner,  "till  such  an  houi 


3Gk?  THB    DOCTRINE   OF  [PAET  HI.  §  2-. 

BO  uneasy  or  unruly  passion  had  any  place  in  my  breast :"  we  will 
then  grant,  these  passions  no  more  prove  a  corrupt  nature  in  the 
sons  than  in  their  first  father.  But  no  man  can  answer  thus.  You, 
and  I,  and  every  man,  must  acknowledge,  that  uneasy  and  unruly 
passions,  are  coeval  with  our  understanding  and  memory  at  least,  il' 
not  with  our  very  being. 

"  Again.  Adam  by  his  sin  brought  sufferings  on  himself  and  his 
posterity.  Yet  it  does  not  follow,  that  his  nature  was  corrupt. 
Therefore,  though  others  by  their  sins  bring  sufferings  on  them- 
selves and  their  posterity,  it  will  not  follow  that  their  nature  is  cor- 
rupt, or  under  the  displeasure  of  God."  Two  very  diiferent  things 
are  here  blended  together.  The  corruption  of  their  nature  is  one 
thing,  the  displeasure  of  God  another.  None  affirms,  that  those  suf- 
ferings v/hich  men  by  their  sins  bring  on  themselves  or  posterity 
prove  that  their  nature  is  corrupt.  But  do  not  the  various  sulferingi- 
of  all  mankind,  prove  that  they  are  under  the  displeasure  of  God  ? 
It  is  certain  no  suffering  came  upon  Adam,  till  he  was  under  the 
displeasure  of  God. 

"  Again.  If  our  first  parents  by  their  sin  brought  suffering  both 
on  themselves  and  others,  and  yet  their  nature  was  not  originally 
corrupt,  nor  under  the  displeasure  of  God:  it  clearly  follows,  that 
the  nature  of  those  who  suffer  purely  in  consequence  of  their  sin, 
is  not  originally  corrupt,  nor  are  they  under  God's  displeasure."  This 
argument  is  bad  every  way.  For,  1.  at  the  time  when  Adam  brought 
the  sentence  of  suffering  both  on  himself  and  others,  his  nature  was 
corrupt,  and  he  was  under  the  actual  displeasure  of  God.  But,  2. 
Suppose  it  were  otherwise,  all  you  could  possibly  infer,  with  regard 
to  his  posterity,  is,  that  their  suffering  does  not  prove  their  corrup- 
sion,  or  their  being  under  the  displeasure  of  God.  How  could  you 
think,  their  suffering  would  prove  them  iwt  corrupt  ?  JSTot  under 
God's  displeasure  1  Therefore  neither  this  nor  the  preceding  argu- 
ment, (seeing  both  are  utterly  inconclusive)  "  take  off  any  thing 
that  Dr.  Watts  has  said,'*  touching  the  present  state  of  the  world,  as 
a  proof  of  God's  displeasure,  and  the  natural  corruption  of  man. 
So  far,  therefore,  is  "his  argument  from  the  sinfulness  and  misery 
of  mankind  from  being  altogether  insufficient  in  every  part ;"  thaf 
it  is  strong  and  conclusive,  any  thing  you  have  advanced  to  the  con- 
trary notwithstanding. 

You  add,  "  Suffering  may  happen  where  there  is  no  sin,  as  in  the 
-case  of  brutes  and  infants  :  or  where  there  is  the  most  perfect  inno-  , 
cence  ;  as  in  the  case  of  our  blessed  Lord."  Absolutely  true  :  that 
is,  where  there  is  no  personal  sin,  but  only  sin  imputed.  There  was 
110  personal  sin  in  our  blessed  Lord  :  there  can  be  none  either  in 
bnites  or  infants.  He  suffered,  therefore,  for  the  sins  of  others, 
which  were  thus  imputed  to  him  :  as  is  the  sin  of  Adam  to  infants, 
who  suffer  death  through  him,  and  in  some  sense  to  the  whole  crea- 
tion ;  which  was  '  made  subject  to  vanity,  not  wilHngly,'  but  on  ac- 
count of  his  transgression.  But  where  there  is  no  sin,  either  per- 
gonal or  imputed,  there  can  be  no  suffering. 


PART  ni.  §  4.]  ORIGINAL  SIX.  269 

«  I  may  add,  from  the  present  state  of  things  a  directly  opposite 
argument  may  be  taken  ;  from  the  enjoyments  and  comforts,  the 
good  things  and  blessings,  which  abound  in  the  world.  I  might  ask, 
are  these  creatures  so  well  provided  for  under  God's  displeasure  ? 
Are  they  not  the  care  of  his  goodness '?  Does  he  not  love  them,  and 
delight  to  do  them  good?"  (p.  58 — 61.)  I  answer,  God  docs  still 
give  us  many  good  things,  many  enjoyments,  comforts,  and  blessings. 
But  all  these  are  given  through  '  the  Seed  of  the  woman :'  they  are 
all  the  purchase  of  his  blood.  Through  him  we  are  still  the  care  of 
the  divine  goodness,  and  God  does  delight  to  do  us  good.  But  this 
does  not  at  all  prove,  either  that  we  have  not  a  sinful  nature,  or  that 
vre  are  not,  while  sinful,  under  his  displeasure. 


SECT.  IV, 

Some  Consequences  of  the  Doctrine  of  Original  Sin. 

"  BY  this  doctrine  some  have  been  led  to  maintain,  1.  That  meif 
have  not  a  sutficient  power  to  perform  their  duty.  But  if  so,  it 
ceases  to  be  their  duty."  (p.  63 — 69.)  I  maintain,  that  men  have 
not  this  power  by  nature.  Biit  they  have  or  may  have  it  by  grace, 
therefore  it  does  not  cease  to  be  their  duty.  And  if  they  perform  it 
not,  they  are  without  excuse. 

"  Hence  some  maintain,  2.  That  we  have  no  reason  to  thank  our 
Creator  for  our  being."  (p.  70 — 73.)  He  that  will  maintain  it,  may. 
But  it  does  by  no  means  follow  from  this  doctrine  :  since  whatever 
we  are  by  nature,  we  may  by  grace  be  children  of  God,  and  heirs  of 
the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

"  But  unthankfuluess  is  a  natural  consequence  of  this  doctrine, 
which  greatly  diminishes,  if  not  totally  excludes  the  goodness  and 
mercy  of  God."  (p.  74.)  St.  Paul  thought  otherwise.  He  imagined 
the  total  ungodliness  and  impotence  of  our  nature,  to  be  the  very 
thing  which  most  of  all  illustrated  the  goodness  and  mercy  of  God. 
'  For  a  good  man,'  says  he,  '  peradventure  one  would  even  dare  to 
die.  But  God  commendeth,'  unspeakably,  inconceivably,  beyond  all 
human  precedent,  '  his  love  to  us,  in  that  while  we  were  yet  without 
strength  Christ  died  for  the  ungodly.'  Here  is  the  ground,  the  real 
and  the  only  ground  for  true  Christian  thankfulness.  '  Christ  died 
for  the  ungodly  that  were  without  strength  :'  such  as  is  every  man 
by  nature.  And  till  a  man  has  been  deeply  sensible  of  it,  he  can 
never  truly  thank  God  for  his  redemption  ;  nor,  consequently,  for 
his  creation,  which  is  in  the  event  a  blessing  to  those  only  who  arc 
<  created  anew  in  Christ  Jesus.' 

"  Hence,  3.  Some  have  poured  great  contempt  upon  human  na- 
ture ;  whereas  God  himself  does  not  despise  mankind,  but  thinks 
them  worthy  of  his  highest  regards."  (p,  75.)  To  describe  human 
nature  as  deeply  fallen,  as  far  removed  both  from  virtue  and  wisdom, 

Z  2 


.^70  THE   DOCTKINE   OF  [PxVRT  III.    §  o. 

does  not  ai'gue  that  we  despise  it.  We  know  by  Scripture  as  well 
as  by  sad  experience,  that  men  are  now  unspeakably  foolish  and 
wicked.  And  such  the  Son  of  God  knew  them  to  be,  when  he  laid 
down  his  life  for  them.  But  this  did  not  hinder  him  from  loving 
them,  no  more  than  it  does  any  of  the  children  of  God. 

You  next  consider  what  Dr.  Watts  observes  with  regard  to  infants, 
(p.  77 — 82.)  'Mankind,'  says  he,  '  in  its  younger  years,  before  it  i« 
capable  of  proper  moral  action,  discovers  the  principles  of  iniquity* 
and  the  seeds  of  sin.  What  young  ferments  of  spite  and'envy,  what 
native  malice  and  rage  are  Ibund  in  the  little  hearts  of  infants,  and 
sufficiently  discovered  by  their  Httle  hands  and  eyes,  and  their  wrath- 
ful countenance  even  before  they  can  speak?'  You  answer,  "Our 
Lord  gave  us  different  ideas  of  them  when  he  taught  his  apostles  to 
become  '  as  little  children.'  "  Not  at  all.  They  may  be  imitable  in 
>ome  respects,  and  yet  have  all  the  tempers  above  described.  And 
it  is  certain  they  have ;  as  any  impartial  observer  will  be  convinced 
by  his  own  eyes.  Nor  is  this  any  way  contradicted  by  St.  Paul's 
words.  In  wickedness,  [fcccicix,)  be  ye  children:  1  Cor.  xiv.  20,  untaught, 
unexpeiienced  :  or  by  those  of  David,  J\Iy  soul  is  even  as  a  weaned 
eldld.^  Psalm  cxxxi.  2. 

"  But  we  discover  in  them  also' the  noble  principles  of  reason  and 
understanding,  with  several  tempers  which  are  capable  of  improve- 
jnent,  whereby  they  may  be  trained  up  in  a  good  way  :  and  numbers 
in  all  ages  of  the  world  have  risen  to  very  considerable  degrees  oi 
excellence."  All  this  is  true  :  but  it  is  not  at  all  inconsistent  with 
the  account  of  them  given  above  :  by  which  it  clearly  appears,  that 
they  are  strongly  inclined  to  evil,  long  before  any  ill  habits  can  b* 
contracted. 


SECT.  V. 

ifl  general  Jlrgument,  taken  from  what  God  has  declared  concerning 
Mankind,  at  the  Restoration  of  the  World  after  the  Deluge. 

"  THERE  are  three  passages  from  Avhich  divines  infer  the  excel- 
lency of  Adam's  state  and  nature  above  our's  :  I.  Gen.  i.  28.  '  And 
God  blessed  them  and  said  unto  them,  be  fruitful,  and  multiply,  and 
replenish  the  earth.'  "  (p.  84.)  With  this  I  have  nothing  to  do  : 
for  I  infer  nothing  from  it,  with  regard  to  the  present  question.  II. 
•• '  Have  dominion  over  the  fish  of  the  sea,  and  over  the  fowl  of  ths- 
air,  and  over  every  living  thing  that  moveth  upon  the  earth.'  III. 
Gen.  i.  27.  '  God  created  man  in  his  own  image,  in  the  image  oJ' 
God  created  he  him.'  From  these  three  particulars  they  deduce  the 
superiority  of  Adam's  nature  above  our's.  But  the  very  same  marks 
of  excellency  are  more  expressly  pronounced  by  God  upon  the  hii- 
jnan  nature,  when  the  race  of  mankind  was  to  be  propagated  ane'v 
from  Noah  and  his  sons."  (p.  85.) 


PART   in.    §  5. J  OKIGINAL  SET>  27^1 

I.  Gen.  ix.  1.  '  And  God  blessed  Noah  and  his  sons.'  With  re- 
gard to  this  whole  passage,  I  must  observe,  That  God  did  not  pro- 
nounce any  blessing  at  all,  either  on  him  or  them,  till  '  Noah  had 
built  an  altar  unto  the  Lord,  and  had  otFered  burnt-offerings  on  the 
altar.'  Then  it  was  that  the  Lord  smelted  a  sweet  savour  ;  accepted 
the  sacrifice  which  implied  faith  in  the  promised  Seed,  and  for  his 
sake  restored  in  some  measure  the  blessing  which  he  had  given  to 
Adam  at  his  creation.  '  And  said  be  fruitful,  and  multiply,  and  re- 
plenish the  earth.'  On  this  I  need  only  observe,,  had  Adam  stood, 
or  had  not  his  I'all  affected  his  posterity,  there  would  have  been  no 
need  of  this :  for  they  would  have  multiplied  and  replenished  the  earth 
in  virtue  of  the  original  blessing. 

IL  Ver.  2.  *  The  fear  of  you,. and  the  dread  of  you,  shall  be  upon 
every  beast  of  the  earth,  and  upon  every  fowl  of  the  air,  and  upon 
all  that  moveth  upon  the  earth  :  into  your  hands  they  are  delivered  : 
every  moving  thing  that  liveth  shall  be  meat  for  you,  even  as  the 
green  herb  have  I  given  you  all  things.'  On  this  likewise  I  would 
observe,  What  need  was  there  of  any  such  power  over  the  creatures 
to  be  given  to  man,  if  he  had  not  forfeited  his  former  power  1  Had 
man  remained  subject  to  God,  the  creatures  would  have  remained 
Subject  to  him,  by  virtue  of  God's  original  constitution.  And  why 
was  it,  but  because  man  had  lost  this  power,  that  God  here  in  some 
degree  restores  it  ? 

But  hence  you  "infer,  that  all  that  power  is  restored,  yea,  more 
than  all :  that  we  have  a  more  extensive  dominion  granted  to  us  ovev 
the  brutal  world,  than  was  originally  given  to  Adam."  (p.  86.)  It 
has  been  commonly  thought,  that  Adam  had  full  dominion  over  the 
creatures  subject  to  him  by  a  kind  of  instinct :  whereas  we  have  only 
so  far  power  over  them,  that  by  labour  and  vigilance  we  may  use  or 
subdue  them.  But  how  do  you  prove  that  we  have  a  fuller  dominion 
than  we  had  1  By  those  words,  'The  fear  and  dread  of  you  shall  be 
upon  all :  into  your  hands  they  are  delivered  :  even  as  the  green 
lierb  have  I  given  you  all  things.'  Nay,  '  the  fear  and  the  dread  oi 
you  shall  be  upon  them,'  does  not  imply  any  dominion  at  all.  A 
wolf  may  fear  me,  who  yet  does  not  obey  me.  I  dread  a  viper,  but 
I  do  not  obey  it.  And  those  words,  into  your  hands  they  are  deliver- 
ed, are  plainly  equivalent  with  '  I  have  given  you  all  things,  even  a?; 
the  green  herb  ;  namely  for  food  ;'  you  may  feed  on  any  of  them. 
So  far,  therefore,  is  this  text  from  expressly  pronouncing  a  more  exten- 
sive dominion  given  to  Noah  over  the  brutal  world  than  was  originally 
given  to  Adam,  that  it  does  not  express  any  proper  dominion  at  all. 

in.  Ver.  6.  '  Whoso  sheddeth  man's  blood,  by  man  shall  his  blood 
be  shed.  For  in  the  image  of  God  made  he  man,'  namely,  at  the 
creation.  And  some  remains  of  the  natural  image  of  God,  as  wc 
are  spiritual  and  immortal  beings,  are  even  now  to  be  found  in  every 
man,  sufficient  to  justify  the  putting  a  murderer  to  death.  St.  Jame^ 
alludes  to  the  same  scriptures,  when  he  says,  "  Therewith  bless  we 
God  and  curse  men,  who  were  made  {rm  ytyeurui)  not  are  made^ 
-  after  the  similitude  of  God.'  "  Jam.  iii.  9.     l^ut  what  does  all  this 


:27SJ  THE    DOCXKINE   OF  [PAKT   III.    §  5. 

prove  1  That  the  being  '  created  in  the  image  of  God,'  "  is  more 
expressly  pronounced  upon  Noah  and  his  sons,  than  it  was  originally 
on  Adam  ?"     I  think  no  man  of  sense  will  say  this  in  cool  blood. 

Of  "  the  three  particulars,"  then,  which  you  brought  to  prove  the 
superiority  of  Noah  over  Adam  in  innocence,  the  first  proves  no 
more  than  that  God  gave  both  the  blessing  of  fruitfulness  :  the  sie- 
cond  far  from  proving  that  Noah  had  a  more  extensive  dominion  over 
rhe  brute  creation  than  Adam,  hardly  proves  that  he  had  any  do- 
minion over  them  at  all ;  and  the  third  proves  only  this,  that  the 
image  of  God  wherein  man  was  made  at  first,  is  not  totally  lost  now. 

Yet  you  say,  "these  three  particulars  contain  all  the  privileges 
«"onferred  on  Adam  at  first.  And  every  one  of  these  is  expressly 
repeated,  and  more  emphatically  and  extensively  pronounced  upon 
man,  after  the  judgment  passed  on  Adam  had  come  upon  his  posteri- 
ty." (p.  87.)  Expressly?  More  emphatically?  JMore  extensively  ? 
Where  1     I  am  sure  not  in  the  Bible. 

However,  you  pompously  add  {sicut  tuus  est  mos)  "  This  is  to  mc 
a  clear  and  undoubted  demonstration." 

I.  "  That  '  the  judgment  which  came  upon  all  men  to  condemna- 
tion,' did  no  ways  alter  the  primary  relation  in  which  God  stood  to 
man,  and  man  to  God."  Certainly  it  was  altered  thus  far,  God  was 
a  condemner,  and  man  was  condemned.  And  though  "  God  is  still 
the  God  and  Father  of  mankind,"  yet  it  cannot  be  said  that  he  is  so 
to  unregenerate  men,  men  who  are  as  yet  *  dead  in  sin  and  children 
of  wrath,'  "  as  much",or  in  the  same  sense  "  as  he  was  to  Adam  in 
imiocence."  Adam  then  was  surely  the  son  of  God,  as  no  other  man 
is,  till  born  of  the  Spirit.  The  power  to  become  the  sons  of  God  is 
now  given  to  none,  till  they  believe  on  his  JVame. 

II.  "  That  the  love,  regards,  and  providence  of  God  toward  man- 
Icind  in  general,  are  still  the  very  same  as  to  man  at  his  first  forma- 
tion." (p.  88.) 

His  providence  is  still  over  all  his  works.  But  he  cannot  regard  or 
delight  in  sinfid  man,  in  the  very  same  manner  wherein  he  delighted 
in  him  when  innocent. 

III.  "That  our  nature  as  derived  from  Noah  has  just  the  same 
endowments,  natiu'al  and  moral,  with  which  Adam  was  created." 
This  does  not  follow  from  any  thing  that  has  yet  been  said.  If  it 
stands  of  itself,  it  may. 

IV.  "  That  whatever  came  upon  us  from  'the  judgment  to  con- 
demnation,' came  no  farther  than  was  consistent  with  that  blessing, 
pronounced  upon  Noah  as  well  as  Adam,  'Be  fruitful  and  multiply.' " 
This  is  undoubtedly  true.  Otherwise  the  human  species  could  not 
have  been  continued.  "  So  that  the  '  condemnation  Avhich  came 
upon  all  men'  cannot  inler  the  wrath  of  God  upon  mankind." — It 
may,  notwithstanding  that  they  increase  and  multiply  :  it  must,  if  they 
are  '  by  nature  children  of  wrath  :' — "  but  only  as  subjecting  us  to 
such  evils,  as  were  perfectly  consistent  with  his  blessing,  declared  to 
Adam,  as  soon  as  he  came  out  of  his  Maker's  hands."  (p.  89.) — 
Namely,  with  the  blessing.  Increase  and  multiply. — "  And  consc- 


PART  ni.  §  6.]  ORIGINAL  SIJ?,  27S 

quently  !  To  such  evils  as  God  might  justly  have  subjected  mankind 
to,  before  Adam  sinned." — Whether  God  could  justly  have  done  this, 
or  not,  what  a  consequence  is  thisl  "  If  God  gave  that  blessing, 
*  Increase  and  multiply,'  to  men  in  general,  as  well  as  he  did  to  Adam, 
then  men  in  general  are  not  '  children  of  wrath'  now,  any  more  than 
Adam  was  at  his  creation." 

V.  "  It  is  no  less  evident,  that  when  St.  Paul  says,  'By  the  disobe- 
dience of  one,  ma  y  (or  all)  were  made  sinners,'  he  cannot  mean,  they 
were  made  sinners  in  any  sense  inconsistent  with  the  blessing  pro- 
nounced on  man  in  innocence."  True ;  not  in  any  sense  inconsist- 
ent with  that  blessing,  '  Increase  and  multiply.'  But  this  blessing  is 
no  way  inconsistent  with  their  being  '  by  nature  children  of  wrath.' 

"  From  all  which  I  conclude,  that  our  state  with  regard  to  the 
blessing  of  God,  and  the  dignity  and  faculties  of  our  nature,  (unless 
debased  by  our  own  sins,)  is  not  inferior  to  that  in  which  Adam  was 
created."  (p.  90 — 93.)  Be  this  so,  or  not,  it  cannot  be  concluded 
from  any  thing  that  has  gone  before.  But  we  may  still  believe,  that 
men  in  general  are  'fallen  short  of  the  glory  of  God,'  are  deprived 
of  that  glorious  image  of  God,  wherein  man  was  originally  created. 


SECT.  VL 

The  J^^otion  of  Manxes  being  a  federal  Head,  or  Representative  of 
JMankind,  considered. 

MY  reason  for  believing  he  was  so  in  some  sense  is  this.  Chrisf 
was  the  Representative  of  mankind,  when  God  '  laid  on  him  the  iniqui- 
ties of  us  all,  and  he  was  wounded  for  our  transgressions.'  But  Adam 
was  a  type  or  figure  of  Christ.  Therefore  he  was  also  in  some  sense 
our  representative.  In  consequence  of  which  '  all  died  in  him,  as  in 
Christ  all  shall  be  made  alive.' 

But  as  neither  representative  nor  federal  head,  are  scripture-words, 
it  is  not  worth  while  to  contend  for  them.  The  thing  !  mean  is  this; 
the  state  of  all  mankind  did  so  far  depend  on  Adam,  that  by  his  fall 
they  all  fall  into  sorrow,  and  pain,  and  death  spiritual  and  temporal. 
And  all  this  is  no  ways  inconsistent,  with  either  the  justice  or  good* 
ne«s  of  God,  provided  all  may  recover  through  the  Second  Adam 
whatever  they  lost  through  the  first.  Nay,  and  recover  it  with  un- 
speakable gain:  since  every  additional  temptation  they  feel,  by  that 
corruption  of  their  nature,  which  is  antecedent  to  their  choice,  will,  it 
conquered  by  grace,  be  a  mean  of  adding  to  that  '  exceeding  and 
eternal  weight  of  glory.' 

This  single  consideration  totally  removes  all  reflections  on  the  Di- 
vine Justice  or  Mercy,  in  making  the  state  of  all  mankind,  so  de- 
pendent on  the  behaviour  of  their  common  parent.  For  not  one 
child  of  man  finally  loses  thereby,  unless  by  his  own  choice.  And 
every  one  who  receives  the  grace  of  God  in  Christ,  will  be  an  unspeak- 


274  THE   DOCTKINE   OF  [PAET  HI,  §  G 

able  gainer.  Who  then  has  any  reason  to  complam,  even  of  having 
a  nature  inclined  to  evil  ?  Seeing  the  more  opportunities  he  has  oi 
fighting,  the  more  of  conquering :  and  seeing  the  greater  is  the  diffi- 
culty of  obtaining  the  victory,  the  brighter  is  the  crown  of  glory. 

But  if  Adam  and  Christ  did  not  stand  or  fall,  obey  and  sutler  for 
mankind,  how  can  the  death  of  others  be  the  consequence  of  Adam's 
offence:  the  Hfe  of  others  the  consequence  of  Christ's  obedience? 
How  could  all  men  be  in  any  sense  constiMed  sinners  by  the  one,  oi' 
constituted  righteous  by  the  other] 

To  explain  this  a  little  further  in  Mr.  Hervcy's  words,  ^'By  fede- 
ral Head  or  Representative,  I  mean  what  the  apostle  teaches,  when 
he  calls  Christ  the  Second  Man,  and  the  last  Adam.  1  Cor.  xv.  47.  The 
last  1  How  ]  Not  in  a  numerical  sense :  not  in  order  of  time :  but  in 
this  respect,  that  as  Adam  was  a  public  person,  and  acted  in  the  stead 
of  all  mankind,  so  Christ  likewise  was  a  public  person,  and  acted  in 
behalf  of  all  his  people :  that  as  Adam  was  the  first  general  represen- 
tative of  mankind,  Christ  was  the  second  and  the  last ;  (there  never 
was,  and  never  will  be  any  other;)  that  what  they  severally  did  in  this 
capacity,  was  not  intended  to  terminate  in  themselves,  but  to  affect 
as  many  as  they  severally  represented." 

"  This  does  not  rest  on  a  single  text,  but  is  established  again  and 
again  in  the  same  chapter.  The  divinely  wise  apostle,  foreseeing 
che  prejudices  which  men  would  entertain  against  this  doctrine,  as 
lying  quite  out  of  the  road  of  reason's  researches,  has  inculcated  and 
re-inculcated  this  momentous  point.  *  Through  the  offence  of  one, 
many  are  dead  : — the  judgment  was  by  one  to  condemnation  : — by 
one  man's  offence  death  reigned  by  one  : — by  the  offence  of  one,  judg- 
ment came  upon  all  men  to  condemnation.'  And  that  there  may  re- 
main no  possibility  of  mistaking  his  meaning,  or  eluding  his  argu- 
ment, he  adds,  *  By  one  man's  disobedience  many  were  made  sin- 
ners.' All  these  expressions  demonstrate,  that  Adam  (as  well  as 
Christ)  was  a  representative  of  all  mankind.  And  that  what  he  did 
hi  this  capacity,  did  not  terminate  in  himself,  but  affected  all  whom  he 
represented." 

After  vehemently  cavilling  at  the  terms,  you  yourself  allow  the 
thing.  You  say,  "  If  what  was  lost  by  the  disobedience  of  one  per- 
son, might  afterwards  be  recovered  by  the  obedience  of  another, 
then  matters  would  have  stood  upon  an  equal  footing:"  (p.  113.) 
and  this  is  indeed  the  truth.  For  "  all  that  was  lost  to  us  by  Adam's 
disobedience,  is  fully  recovered  by  Christ's  obedience  :  however  we 
denominate  the  relation  in  which  the  one  or  the  other  stands  to  us.'' 

In  this  we  agree  :  but  not  in  what  follows.  "  By  Law  in  the  5th 
of  the  Romans,  as  in  several  other  places,  the  apostle  does  not  mean 
barely  a  rule  of  duty  ;  but  such  a  rule,  with  the  penalty  of  death 
threatened  to  every  transgression  of  it.  Such  was  the  law  given  by 
Moses;"  (p.  114,  115,)  that  is,  "a  rule,  to  every  transgression  of 
which  the  penalty  of  death  was  threatened."  Not  so:  there  were  a 
thousand  transgressions  of  it,  to  which  death  was  not  threatened. 
Observe  :  by  death  we  now  mean  temporal  death,  according  to  the 


TAUT    in.  §  7.]  ORIGINAL   SIN.  27^ 

whole  tenor  of  your  argument.  "But  is  it  not  said,  'Cursed  is 
every  one  that  continueth  not  in  all  things  written  in  the  laAv  to  do 
them?"  It  is.  But  whatever  this  curse  implied,  it  did  not  imply 
temporal  death.  For  a  man  might  neglect  to  do  many  things  xmtten 
in  the  law,  and  yet  not  he  punishable  with  death. 

Neither  can  I  agree  with  your  interpretation  of  Rom.  vii.  9.  "1 
was  alive  without  the  law  once:  namely,  (p.  116,)  before  the  giving 
of  the  law  at  Mount  Sinai.  The  Jew  was  then  alive  :  that  is,  he- 
cause  he  was  not  then  under  the  law,  he  was  not  slain  by  his  sin. 
His  sin  was  not  so  imputed  to  him  as  to  subject  him  to  death.  '  But 
when  the  commandment  came,'  with  the  penalty  of  death  annexed 
' sin  revived'  —  acquired  full  life  and  vigour :" — (How  so  ?  One  would 
have  expected  just  the  contrary  !)  "  '  and  I  died,'  that  is,  was  a  dead 
man  inlaw,  upon  the  first  transgression  he  committed."  Beside  many 
other  objections  to  this  strange  interpretation,  an  obvious  one  is  this, 
It  supposes  every  transgression  punishable  with  death.  But  this  is  a 
palpable  mistake.  Therefore  all  that  is  built  on  this  foundation,  falls 
to  the  ground  at  once. 

Upon  the  whole  :  whatever  objections  may  lie  against  Dr.  Watts's 
method  of  explaining  it,  it  appears  from  clear  scripture  and  from  your 
own  words,  that  Adam  was  the  representative  of  mankind. 


SECT.  YH. 

Of  the  Formation  of  our  JYature  in  the  f^Fomb. 

BEFORE  I  say  any  thing  on  this  head,  I  must  premise,  that  there 
are  a  thousand  circumstances  relating  to  it,  concerning  which  I  can 
form  no  conception  at  all,  but  am  utterly  in  the  dark.  I  know  not 
how  my  body  was  fashioned  there  ;  or  when  or  how  my  soul  was 
united  to  it.  And  it  is  far  easier  in  speaking  on  so  abstruse  a  sub- 
ject, to  pull  down,  than  to  build  up.  I  can  easily  object  to  any  hy- 
pothesis which  is  advanced  :  but  I  cannot  easily  defend  any. 

And  if  you  ask  me.  How,  in  what  determinate  manner  sin  is  pro- 
pagated ?  How  it  is  translated  from  father  to  son  1  I  answer 
plainly,  I  cannot  tell.  No  more  than  I  can  tell.  How  man  is  propa- 
gated ?  How  a  body  is  transmitted  from  father  to  son  1  I  know 
both  the  one  and  the  other  fact.     But  I  can  account  for  neither. 

Thus  much  however  is  plain,  that  "  God  is  the  maker  of  every 
man  who  comes  into  the  world."  (p.  138.)  For,  It  is  God  alone 
who  gives  man  power  to  propagate  his  species.  Or  rather,  it  is  God 
himself  who  does  the  work,  by  man  as  an  instrument :  man  (as  you 
observed  before)  having  no  other  part  in  producing  man,  than  the 
oak  has  in  producing  an  acorn.  God  is  really  the  producer  of  every 
man,  every  animal,  every  vegetable  in  the  world  ;  as  he  is  the  true 
primum  mobile,  the  spring  of  all  motion  through  the  universe.  So 
far  we  agree.     But  when  you  subsume,  "  If  it  is  the  power  of  God 


&76  THE   DOCTETOE   OF  [faRT   m.    §    1< 

whereby  a  sinlul  species  is  propagated,  whereby  a  sinful  father  begets 
a  sinful  son,  then  God  is  the  author  of  sin  ;  that  sinfulness  is  charge- 
able upon  him  ;"  here  we  divide  ;  I  cannot  allow  the  co.  sequence  : 
because  the  same  argument  would  make  God  chargeable  with  all 
the  sinful  actions  of  men.  For  it  is  the  power  of  God  v/bereby  the 
murderer  lifts  up  his  arm,  whereby  the  adulterer  perpetrates  his 
wickedness ;  tuU  as  much  as  it  is  his  power,  whereby  an  acorn  pro- 
duces an  oak,  or  a  father  a  son.  But  does  it  follow,  that  God  is 
chargeable  with  the  sin  1  You  know  it  does  not  follow.  The  power 
of  God,  vulgarly  termed  nature,  acts  from  age  to  age,  under  its 
fixed  rules.  Yet  he  who  this  moment  supplies  the  power,  by  which 
a  sinful  action  is  comujitted,  is  not  chargeable  with  the  sinfulness  of 
that  action.  In  like  manner,  it  is  the  power  of  God  which  from 
age  to  age  continues  the  human  species ;  yet  he  who  this  moment 
supplies  the  power  whereby  a  sinful  nature  is  propagated,  (according 
to  the  fixed  rules  established  in  the  lower  world,)  is  not  chargeable 
with  the  sinfulness  of  that  nature.  This  distinction  you  must  allow, 
as  was  observed  before,  or  charge  God  with  all  the  sin  committed 
under  heaven.  And  this  general  answer  may  suffice  any  sincere 
and  modest  inquirer,  without  entangling  himself  in  those  minute 
particulars,  which  are  beyond  the  reach  of  human  understanding. 

"  But  does  not  God  create  the  nature  of  every  man  that  comes 
into  the  world  1"  He  does  not,  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word 
create.  The  Scripture  plainly  affirms  the  contrary.  '  On  the 
seventh  day  he  rested  from  all  his  work  which  God  created  and 
made.'  Gen.  ii.  2.  '  The  works  which  God  created  were  finished 
from  the  foundation  of  the  world.'  Heb.  iv.  3.  10.  And  as  soon  as 
they  were  finished,  '  God  ceased  from  his  work,'  namely  from  his 
work  of  creating.  He  therefore  now,  (not  creates,  but)  produces  the 
body  of  every  man,  in  the  same  manner  as  he  produces  the  oak ; 
only  by  supplying  the  power  whereby  one  creature  begets  anothei\ 
according  to  what  we  term  the  Lawsof  J^ature.  In  a  higher  sense 
he  is  the  Creator  of  all  souls.  But  hoic  or  when,  he  does  or  did 
(5^'eate  them,  I  cannot  tell.  Neither  can  I  give  any  account,  hoic 
or  wheii  he  unites  them  to  the  body.  Likewise  how  we  are  conceived 
in  sin,  I  know  not :  but  I  know,  that  we  are  so  conceived.  God 
hath  said  it.  And  I  know  he  will  be  'justified  in  his  saying,  and 
clear  when  he  is  judged.' 

It  is  certain,  that  God  is  the  maker  of  every  man.  But  it  is 
neither  certain  nor  true,  that  he  "  makes  every  man  in  the  Avomb, 
both  soul  and  body,  as  immediately  as  he  made  Adam  :"  and  that 
therefore  "  every  man  comes  out  of  the  hands  of  God,  as  ])roperh 
as  Adam  did."  (p.  140.)  To  interpret  any  scriptures  as  affirming 
this,  is  to  make  them  flatly  contradict  other  scriptures.  God  made 
Adam  by  inmiediate  creation :  he  does  not  so  make  every  man,  or 
any  man  beside  him.  Adam  came  directly  out  of  the  hands  of  God, 
without  the  intervention  of  any  creature.  Does  every  man  thus  come 
out  of  the  hands  of  God  1     Do  no  creatures  now  intervene  1 

<'  But  if  God  produces  the  nature  of  every  man  in  the  womb,  \\t 


rXRT   m.   §    7.]  ORIGINAL  SIN.  277 

must  produce  it  with  all  the  qualities  which  belong  to  that  nature,  a.« 
it  is  then  and  so  produceti."  So,  if  God  produces  the  action  of  every 
man  in  the  world,  he  must  produce  it  with  all  the  qualities  which  be- 
long to  that  action,  as  it  is  then  and  so  produced,  "  For  it  is  impos- 
sible God  should  produce  our  nature,  and  not  produce  the  qualities 
it  has  when  produced."  For  it  is  impossible  God  should  produce 
an  action,  and  yet  not  proiluce  the  qualities  it  has  when  produced." 
'*  No  substance  can  be  made  without  some  qualities.  And  it  must 
necessarily,  as  soon  as  it  is  made,  have  those  qualities  which  the 
Maker  gives  it,  and  no  other."  No  action  can  be  produced,  without 
some  quaUties.  And  it  must  necessarily,  as  soon  as  it  is  produced, 
have  those  qualities  which  the  producer  gives  it,  and  no  other.  You 
see  what  this  argument  would  prove,  if  it  proved  any  thing  at  all. 

We  will  trace  it  a  little  farther.  "  If  God  produces  the  nature  of 
every  man  in  the  womb,  with  all  its  quahties,  then  whatever  those 
qualities  are,  they  are  the  will  and  the  work  of  God."  So  :  if  God 
produces  the  action  of  every  man  in  the  world,  with  all  its  qualities, 
then  whatever  those  qualities  are,  they  are  the  will  and  the  work  of 
God.  Surely,  no.  God  docs,  (in  the  sense  above  explained,  pro- 
duce the  acfion  which  is  sinful.  And  yet,  (whether  I  can  account 
for  it  or  not,  the  sinfulness  of  it  is  not  his  will  or  icork.  He  does  also 
produce  the  nature  which  is  sinful,  (he  supplies  the  power  by  v/hich 
it  is  produced,)  and  yet,  (whether  1  can  account  for  this  or  not)  the 
sinfulness  of  it  is  not  his  will  or  icork.  I  am  as  sure  of  this,  as  I  am 
that  there  is  a  God :  and  yet  impenetrable  darkness  rests  on  the  sub- 
ject. Yet  I  am  conscious  my  understanding  can  no  more  fathom 
this  deep,  than  reconcile  man's  free-will  with  the  fore-knowledge  of 
God. 

"  Consequently  those  qualities  cannot  be  sinful."  This  conse- 
quence  cannot  hold  in  one  case,  unless  it  holds  in  both.  But  if  it 
does,  there  can  be  no  sin  in  the  universe. 

However,  you  go  on.  "  It  is  highly  dishonourable  to  God,  to 
suppose  he  is  displeased  at  us,  for  what  he  himself  has  infused  into 
our  nature."  (p.  143.)  It  is  not  allowed  that  he  has  "infused  sin  into 
our  nature ;"  no  more  than  that  he  infuses  sin  into  our  actions;  though 
it  is  his  power  which  produces  both  our  actions  and  nature. 

I  am  aware  of  the  distinction,  that  mail's  free-jinll  is  concerned  in 
the  one  case,  but  not  the  §ther  :  and  that  on  this  account,  God  can- 
not be  charged  with  the  sinfulness  of  human  actions.  But  this  does 
by  no  means  remove  the  difficulty.  For,  1 .  Does  not  God  know 
what  the  murderer  or  adulterer  is  about  to  dol  What  use  he  wiil 
make  of  that  power  to  act,  which  he  cannot  have  but  from  Godl  2. 
Does  he  not  at  the  instant  supply  him  with  that  power  whereby  the 
sinfulaction  is  donel  God  thereiore  produces  the  action  which  is  sinful. 
It  is  his  loork,  and  his  toill,  (for  he  works  nothing  but  what  he  wills.) 
And  yet  the  sinfulness  of  the  action  is  neither  his  work  nor  ivill. 

<'But  can  those  passions  or   propensities  be  sinful,  which  arc 
neither  caused  nor  consented  to  by  me  *?"     I  answer,  spite,  envy, 
and  those  other  passions  and  tempers  which  are  manifestly  disccrni- 
VoL  9.— A  a 


278  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  [PAET  111.  §  8, 

ble  even  in  little  children,  are  certjiinly  not  virtiiotiSy  not  morally  good, 
wheUier  you  term  them  sinful  or  not.  And  it  is  as  certain,  these 
exist  before  they  are  consented  to,  much  less  caused  by  those  that  feel 
them.  "But  sin,  if  it  is  unavoidable  is  no  sin."  (p.  143.)  Whether 
you  term  it  sin  or  not,  it  is  contrary  to  the  nature  of  God,  and  a  trans- 
gression of  his  holy  and  good  law. 

"  But  a  natural-moral  evil  is  a  contradiction :  for  if  it  be  natural, 
it  cannot  be  moral."  That  tempers  contrary  to  the  nature  and  the 
law  of  God  are  natural,  is  a  point  of  daily  experience.  But  if  you 
do  not  choose  to  call  these  morally  evil,  call  them  what  you  please. 
All  I  aver  is,  that  such  tempers  do  exist  in  us  antecedent  to  our 
choice. 

"  But  if  the  actual  sins  of  men  proceed  from  a  corrupt  nature, 
they  are  unavoidable,  and  consequently  no  sins  at  all."  (p.  144.) 
^^ctual  sins  may  proceed  from  a  corrupt  nature,  and  yet  not  be  un- 
avoidable. But  it"  actions  contrary  to  the  nature  of  God  were  un- 
avoidable, it  would  not  follow,  that  they  were  innocent. 

To  the  question,  "  How  comes  it  to  pass,  that  our  passions  and 
appetites  are  now  so  irregular  and  strong,  that  not  one  person  has 
resisted  them  so  as  to  keep  himself  pure  and  innocent  ?'    You  an- 
swer by  another  question,  "  How  came  Adam  not  to  keep  himself 
pure  and  innocent  ?"  (p.  145.)     There  is  no  parity  between  the 
one  case  and  the  other.     I  can  account  for  any  one  man's  commit- 
ting sin,  supposing  him  to  be  naturally  upright,  as  easily  as  for  Adam's 
committing  it.     Any  one  person,  as  well  as  Adam,  though  naturally 
inclined  to  neither,  might  choose  either  good  or  evil.     And  on  this 
supposition  he  would  be  as  likely  to  choose  one  as  the  other.     But 
the  case  is  extremely  different,  if  you  place  Adam  on  one  side,  and 
all  mankind  on  the  other.     It  is  true,  "  the  nature  of  sin  is  not  altered 
by  its  being  general."     But  the  case  is  very  Avidely  altered.     On 
this  or  that  man  it  may  "  come,  just  as  it  came  upon  Adam,  by  his 
own  choice  and  compliance  with  temptation."     But  how  comes  it, 
that  all  men  under  the  sun,  should  choose  evil  rather  than  good  1 
How   came  all  the   children  of  Adam  from  the  beginning  of  the 
world  till  now,  to  comply  with  temptation  1     How  is  it  that  in  all 
ages,  the  scale  has  turned  the  wrong  way,  with  regard  to  every  man 
born  into  the  world  1  Can  you  see  no  difficulty  in  this  ?     And  can 
you  fmd  any  way  to  solve  that  difficulty,  biy;  to  say  with  the  Psalmist, 
we  were  '  shapen  in  iniquity,  and  in  sin  did  our  mothers  conceive  us?" 


SECT.  VHI. 

Of  Original  Righteousness. 

"  ORIGINAL  Righteousness  is  said  to  be,  that  moral  rectitude 
in  which  Adam  was  created.  His  reason  was  clear,  and  sense,  ap- 
petite, and  passion,  were  subject  to  it.     His  judgment  was  uncor- 


PARI  III.    §  8.]  ORIGINAL   SIX.  279 

rupted,  and  his  will  had  a  constant  propensity  to  holiness.  He  had 
a  supreme  love  to  his  Creator,  a  fear  of  offending  him,  and  a  readi- 
ness to  do  his  will.  When  Adam  sinned,  he  lost  his  moral  rectitude, 
this  image  of  God  in  which  he  was  created  :  in  consequence  of 
which  all  his  posterity  come  into  the  world  destitute  of  that  image." 
(p.  147—149.) 

In  order  to  remove  this  mistake,  you  reconsider  some  of  the  texts 
on  which  it  is  grounded.  « Lie  not  one  to  another,  seeing  ye  have 
put  off  the  old  man  with  his  deeds  ;  and  have  put  on  the  new  man, 
which  is  renewed  in  knowledge,  after  the  image  of  him  that  created 
him.'  (Col.  iii.  9,  10.)  'That  ye  put  off,  concerning  the  former  con- 
versation, the  old  man  which  is  corrupt,  according  to  the  deceitful 
lusts,  and  be  renewed  in  the  spirit  of  your  mind,  and  put  on  the  new 
man,  which  after  God  is  created  in  righteousness  and  true  holiness.' 
(Eph.  iv.  22—24.) 

On  this  you  affirm,  "  The  old  and  new  man  here  do  not  signify  a 
course  of  life.  But  the  old  man  signifies  the  Heathen,  the  new  man, 
the  Christian  profession."  (p.  150,  151.) 

This  you  prove,  1.  From  Ejjh.  ii.  15,  '  Christ  abolished  the  en- 
mity, to  make  (or  create)  in  himself,  of  twain  one  new  man.'  Does 
this  only  mean  one  new  profession  ?  It  evidently  means,  one  churchy 
both  of  Jeios  and  Gentiles. 

You  prove  it,  2.  From  Col.  iii.  8 — 12,  where  "  the  apostle  tells 
the  Colossian  Christians,  that  now  they  were  obliged  to  put  off  an- 
ger, and  to  put  on  bowels  of  mercies  ;  to  admit  the  Christian  spirit 
into  their  hearts,  and  to  practise  Christian  duties ;  for  this  reason, 
because  they  *  had  put  off  the  old  man,  and  had  put  on  the  new.' 
This  shows  the  new  man  was  something  they  might  have  put  on,  and 
yet  be  defective  in  personal,  internal  holiness."  True  :  defective  so 
far,  as  still  to  want  more  :  more  '  bowels  of  mercies,  meekness,  long 
suffering.'  But  this  does  not  show,  that  the  new  man  does  not  mean, 
the  principle  both  of  internal  and  external  holiness.  The  conscious- 
ness of  having  received  this,  is  a  strong  motive  both  to  depart  from 
evil,  and  to  labour  after  a  continual  increase  of  every  holy  and  hea- 
venly temper.  Therefore  Jiere  likewise,  *  the  putting  off  the  old 
and  the  putting  on  the  new  man,'  does  not  mean  an  outward  profes- 
sion, but  a  real,  inward  change  :  a  renewal  of  soul  <  in  righteousness 
and  true  holiness.' 

You  prove  it,  3,  from  Eph.  iv.  22.  24.  Here  you  say,  "  He  con- 
siders <  the  putting  off  the  old,  and  putting  on  the  new  man,'  as  a 
duty.  They  had  done  it  by  profession,  and  therefore  were  olDliged 
to  do  it  effectually."  They  had  done  it  effectually.  So  the  whole 
tenor  of  the  apostle's  words  implies,  'Ye  have  not  so  learned  Christ : 
if  so  be  (rather,  seeing  that)  ye  have  been  taught  by  him, — That  ye 
put  off  the  old  man : — And  be  renewed  in  the  spirit  of  your  mind  ; 
and  that  ye  put  on  the  new  man,  which  after  God  is  created  in  right- 
eousness and  true  holiness.'  (Eph.  iv.  20,  24.)  The  apostle  here 
manifestly  speaks  not  of  a  lesson  they  had  not  learned,  but  of  one 
which  God  had  taught  them  already :  and  thence  exhorts  them  to 


'iSO  THE   DOCTRINE    OT  [I'ART  III.  §  8, 

walk  worthy  of  the  blessing  they  had  received,  to  be  <  holy  in  all 
manner  of  conversation.' 

Bnt,  4,  "  The  putting  on  the  new  man  is  one  thing,  and  the  crea- 
ting him  is  another.  He  must  first  be  created,  and  then  put  on," 
(p.  152.)  No.  He  is  created  and  put  on  at  the  same  time  :  the  for- 
mer word  more  directly  referring  to  God  who  creates,  the  latter  to 
man  who  is  created.  "But  God,  you  say,  created  the  new  man. 
when  he  erected  the  gospel-dispensation  :  as  appears  from  Eph.  ii. 
15.  19 — 22."  I  answer,  1.  If  those  latter  verses  are  explanatory  of 
that  expression,  '  one  new  man'  in  the  15th,  then  it  does  not  mean, 
«>ne  outward  profession,  bi:t  the  one  church  of  living  believers  in 
Christ:  2.  The  expression  in  the  15th  verse,  is  not  the  same  with 
that  we  are  now  considering.  Neither  is  the  meaning  of  that  and 
this  expression  the  same  :  one  new  man  means  one  church  and 
nothing  else  :  the  new  man  means  quite  another  thing ;  the  work 
of  God  in  every  individual  believer. 

You  say,  5.  "  The  old  man  and  the  nevr,  and  the  new  man's  being 
renewed  and  created,  and  the  renewing  of  the  Ephesians,  all  refer 
not  to  any  corruption  of  nature,  but  to  their  late  wicked  life."  (p. 
153.)  What  !  Does  their  being  renewed  in  the  spiritof  their  mind, 
refer  only  to  their  wicked  life  1  If  you  had  not  affirmed  this,  I  shouki 
leally  wonder  at  your  aftirming  quickly  after,  "  In  all  other  ])laces 
of  Scripture,  except  2  Cor.  iv,  16,  renewing  relates  only  to  a  vicious 
course  of  life  :"  (p.  154,)  seeing  you  immediately  confute  yourself, 
by  both  the  following  citations,  '  Be  not  conformed  to  this  world, 
but  be  ye  transformed  by  the  renewal  of  your  mind:'  (Rom.  xii.  2,) 
unless  the  mind  be  only  another  expression  for  "  a  vicious  course  of 
life."  'We  ourselves  also  were  sometimes  foolish,  disobedient,  de- 
ceived, serving  divers  lusts  and  pleasures  ;  living  in  inahce  and  envy, 
hatelal,  and  hating  one  another.'  Do  these  words  iniply  nothing 
but  "  a  vicious  course  of  life  ?''  No  inward  corruption  at  all  ?  'But 
after  that  the  loving  kindness  and  love  of  God  our  Saviour  toward 
man  appeared — He  saved  us  by  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost. — 
From  what  1  From  a  vicious  course  of  life  only  ?  Nay,  but  from 
foolishness  of  heart  also,  from  error,  froiji  malice,  hatred,  envy,  evil 
desire  ;  all  which  are  inward  corruptions. 

You  add,  "  From  all  this  we  may  gather,  that  God's  creating  the 
new  man  after  his  own  image  in  righteousness  and  true  holiness,, 
means  his  erecting  the  Christian  church  with  a  view  to  promote  righ- 
teousness and  holiness  among  men.  '  For  we  are  God's  workman- 
ship, created  in  Christ  Jesus  unto  good  works.'  ''  (p.  155.)  Surely 
vou  do  not  cite  this  verse  also  to  })rove,  that  the  renewing  of  our 
mind  implies  no  iriv/ard  change  ?  It  must  be  something  more  than  an 
outward  profession,  or  the  reforming  a  vicious  course  of  life,  by  rea- 
son of  v/hich  we  are  said  to  be  God's  workmanship,  created  anew  in 
Christ  Jesus. 

These  texts  therefore  do  manifestly  refer  to  personal,  internal  holi- 
ness, and  clearly  prove,  that  this  is  the  chief  part  of  that  image  ot 
(iod  in  which  man  was  originallv  created. 


i 


PART    III.    §    8.]  ORIGINAL  SIN.  281 

The  other  text  which  you  reconsider  is  Eccles.  vii.  29,  *  God  hath 
made  man  upright ;  but  they  have  sought  out  many  inventions.'  "  But 
this,  you  say,  does  not  mean,  that  God  made  man  righteous  ;  but  that 
he  made  him  right,  as  having  those  powers,  means,  and  encourage- 
ments, by  a  due  use  of  which  he  may  become  righteous."  In  order 
to  prove  that  this  is  the  true  meaning  of  the  words,  you  affirm,  1. 
"  That  man  is  here  not  to  be  understood  of  Adam,  but  of  all  man- 
kind." This  cannot  be  granted  without  full  proof.  You  affirm,  2. 
"  This  appears  from  the  latter  part  of  the  sentence  :  '  Theij  sought 
out  many  inventions.' "  Adam  and  Eve  did  so,  in  and  after  their 
fall.  This  therefore  proves  nothing.  You  affirm,  3.  The  word 
jashar  (which  we  translate  upright)  "  does  not  always  imply  upright- 
ness or  righteousness."  But  this  is  its  proper  meaning,  as  will  appear 
to  any  who  seriously  considers  the  following  texts,  1.  Deut.  xii.  25, 
'  When  thou  shalt  do  that  which  is  right  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord.'  It 
is  taken  in  the  very  same  sense  ver.  28,  chap.  xiii.  18,  and  xxi.  9. 
In  all  these  texts  it  undeniably  implies  morally  good  or  righteous.  2. 
Deut.  xxxii.  4, '  A  God  of  truth  and  without  iniquity ;  just  and  right 
is  he.*  Psalm  xxv.  8,  '  Good  and  upright  is  the  Lord.'  3.  Psalm 
xxxiii.  4,  «  The  word  of  the  Lord  is  right.'*  Hos.  xiv.  9,  «  The  ways 
of  the  Lord  are  rightJ*  4.  Psalm  xxxii.  11,  'Be  glad  and  rejoice,  ye 
righteous.'  Psalm  xxxiii.  1,  'Rejoice  in  the  Lord,  O  ye  righteous.^ 
In  the  very  same  sense  it  occurs  in  numberless  places.  As  the  word 
is  therefore  properly  appUed  to  God  himself,  to  his  word,  his  provi- 
dences, and  his  people :  in  all  which  cases  it  must  necessarily  mean 
righteous,  we  cannot  lightly  depart  from  this  its  proper  signification. 

But  you  think,  there  is  a  necessity  of  departing  from  it  here  :  be- 
cause," to  say,  God  created  Adam  righteous,  is  to  affirm  a  contradic- 
tion, or  what  is  inconsistent  with  the  very  nature  of  righteousness. 
For  a  righteousness  wrought  in  him  without  his  knowledge  or  con- 
sent, would  have  been  no  righteousness  at  all.'*  (p.  161.)  You  may 
call  it  by  any  name  you  like  better.  But  Ave  must  use  the  old  name 
still :  as  being  persuaded,  that  the  love  of  God,  governing  the  senses, 
appetites,  and  passions,  however  or  whenever  it  is  wrought  in  the  soul, 
is  true,  essential  righteousness. 

Nay,  "  Righteousness  is  right  action."  Indeed  it  is  not.  Here, 
(as  we  said  before)  is  your  fundamental  mistake.  It  is  a  right  state 
oj  mind,  which  differs  from  right  action,  as  the  cause  does  from  the 
effect.  Righteousness  is  properly  and  directly,  a  right  temper  or  dis- 
position of  mind,  or  a  complex  of  all  right  tempers. 

For  want  of  observing  this,  you  say,  "  Adam  could  not  act  before 
he  was  created.  Therefore  he  must  exist,  and  use  his  intellectual 
powers,  before  he  could  be  righteous."  "  But  according  to  this 
reasoning,  as  Dr.  Jennings  observes,  Christ  could  not  be  righteous 
at  his  birth."  You  answer,  «  He  existed  before  he  was  made  flesh." 
1  reply,  he  did,  as  God.  But  the  man  Christ  Jesus  did  not.  Neither 
therefore  did  he  use  his  intellectual  poicers.  According  to  your  rea- 
soning then,  the  Man  Christ  Jesus  could  not  be  righteous  at  his  birth. 

The  Doctor  adds,  «  Nay,  according  to  this  reasoning,  God  could 

A  a  2  . 


282  THE    DOCTRINE  OF  [PART   UI.    §    3. 

not  be  righteous  from  eternity ;  because  he  must  exist,  before  he  was 
lighteous."  You  answer,  "My  reasoning  would  hold  even  with  re- 
spect to  God,  were  it  true  that  he  ever  did  begin  to  exist.  But 
neither  the'existcnce  nor  the  holiness  of  God  was  prior  to  each  other." 
Nay,  but  if  his  existence  v/as  not  prior  to  his  holiness,  if  he  did  not 
exist  before  he  was  holy,  your  assertion,  that  every  being  must  exist 
before  it  is  righteous,  is  not  true. 

Besides,  (to  pursue  your  reasoning  a  little  farther,)  if  "  God  did 
always  exist,"  yet  unless  you  can  prove,  that  he  always  acted,  it  will 
not  clear  your  argument.  For  let  him  exist  millions  of  ages,  he  could 
not  be  righteous  (according  to  your  maxim)  before  he  acted  right. 

One  word  more  on  this  article.  You  say,  "  My  reasoning  v/ould 
hold  good,  even  with  respect  to  God,  were  it  true,  that  he  ever  did 
begin  to  exist."  Then  I  ask  concerning  the  Son  of  God,  Did  he 
ever  begin  to  exist  ?  If  he  did  not,  he  is  the  one,  eternal  God  :  (for 
there  cannot  be  two  Eternals)  if  he  did,  and  your  reasoning  hold 
good,  when  he  began  to  exist,  he  was  not  righteous. 

*'  But  St.  John  saith,  *  He  that  doeth  righteousness  is  righteous.'" 
Yes,  it  appears  he  is,  by  his  doing  or  practising  righteousness.  "  But 
where  doth  the  Scripture  speak  one  word  of  a  righteousness  infused 
into  us  ?"  Where  it  speaks  of  the  love  of  God  (the  essence  of  right- 
eousness) shed  abroad  in  our  hearts. 

And  cannot  God,  by  his  almighty  power,  infuse  any  good  tempers 
into  us  1  You  answer,  "  No.  No  being  whatever  can  do  for  us, 
that  which  cannot  be  at  all,  if  it  be  not  our  own  choice,  and  the  effect 
of  our  own  industry  and  exercise.  But  all  good  tempers  are  the 
effect  of  our  own  industry  and  exercise.  Otherwise  they  cannot  be 
at  all." 

Nay  then,  it  is  certain,  they  cannot  be  at  all.  For  neither  lowli- 
ness, meekness,  long-suffering,  nor  any  other  good  temper,  can  ever 
be  the  effect  of  my  own  industry  and  exercise.  But  I  verily  believe 
they  may  be  the  effect  of  God's  Spirit  working  in  me  whatsoevey 
pleaseth  him.     See  Isa.  xxvi.  12. 

You  add,  *'  The  thing  cannot  exist,  unless  we  choose,  because  our 
choosing  to  do  what  is  right,  is  the  very  thing  which  is  to  exist." 
No :  the  thing  which  is  to  exist  is,  a  right  state  of  mind.  And  it  is  cer- 
tain God  can  give  this  to  any  creature,  at  the  very  first  moment  of 
its  existence.  Nay,  it  may  be  questioned,  whether  God  can  create 
an  intelligent  being  in  any  other  state  ? 

"  But  a  habit  is  gained  by  repeated  acts.  Therefore  habits  of  right- 
eousness could  not  be  created  in  man."  Mere  playing  upon  words ! 
He  could  be,  he  ivas  created  full  of  love.  Now,  whether  you  call 
this  a  habit  or  not,  it  is  the  sum  of  all  righteousness. 

"  But  this  love  is  either  under  the  government  of  my  will,  or  it  is 
not."  It  is.  The  love  of  God  which  Adam  enjoyed,  was  under  the 
goverrmient  of  his  will.  "  But  if  so,  it  could  be  righteous  only  so  far 
us  applied  to  right  action  in  heart  and  life."  (p.  165.)  Stop  here. 
The  love  of  God  is  righteousness,  the  moment  it  exists  in  any  soul. 
And  it  must  exist  before  it  can  be  applied  to  action.    Accordinglv 


-tABT  m.  §  8..]  ORIGINAL  SIN.  ^03 

K  'it  was  righteousness  in  Adam  the  moment  he  was  created.     And  yet 

■^^he  had  a  power  either  to  follow  the  dictates  of  that  love,  (in  which 

'-  »case  his  righteousness  would  have  endured  for  ever,)  or  to  act  con- 

-  ,,trary  thereto  :  but  love  was  righteousness  still ;  though  it  was  not  irre- 

•  'sistible. 

".  "  I  might  add,  Adam's  inclination  to  sin  (for  he  could  not  sin  with- 
•out  a  sinful  inclination)  must  be  so  strong  as  to  overcome  his  (sup- 
.posed)  inbred  propensity  to  holiness  :  and  so  malignant,  as  to  expel 
.that  principle  at  once,  and  totally.  Consequently,  the  supposed 
k  ,original  righteousness,  was  consistent  with  a  sinful  propensity,  vastly 
stronger  and  more  malignant  than  ever  was  or  can  be  in  any  of  his 
:posterity :  who  cannot  sin  against  such  resistance,  or  with  such  dread- 
ful consequences.  Thus  original  righteousness  in  Adam  proves  far 
worse  than  original  sin  in  his  posterity."  (p.  166.) 

I  have  set  down  your  argument  at  large,  that  it  may  appear  in  its 
full  strength.  Now  let  us  view  it  more  closely.  1.  "  Adam  could 
not  sin  without  a  sinful  inclination."  The  sentence  is  ambiguous. 
Either  it  may  mean,  "  Adam  could  not  choose  ill,  without  some  sin- 
ful temper  preceding ;"  and  in  this  sense  it  is  false  :  or  he  could  not 
commit  outward  sin,  without  first  inclining,  that  is,  choosing  so  to  do. 
2.  "  This  his  sinful  inclination  ^or  temper)  was  so  strong  as  to  over- 
come his  inbred  propensity  to  holiness."  It  was  not  any  sinful  incli- 
nation (in  this  sense)  which  overcame  his  propensity  to  holiness  :  but 
strong  temptation  from  without :  how  strong  we  know  not :  and  the 
circumstances  of  it,  we  know  not.  3.  "  That  his  sinful  inclination 
was  so  malignant,  as  to  expel  that  principle  at  once  and  totally.'* 
Not  by  any  sinful  inclination,  but  by  yielding  to  temptation,  he  did 
lose  the  love  and  image  of  God.  But  that  this  was  totally,  and  at  once, 
we  have  no  authority  to  affirm.  4.  "  Consequently  original  right- 
eousness in  Adam  was  consistent  with  a  sinful  propensity,  vastly 
stronger  and  more  malignant,  than  ever  was  or  can  be  in  any  of  his 
posterity."  It  was  consistent  with  no  sinful  propensity  at  all,  but 
barely  with  a  poioer  of  jielding  to  temptation.  It  declined  in  the 
same  proportion,  and  by  the  same  degrees,  as  he  did  actually  yield  to 
this.  And  when  he  had  yielded  entirely  and  eaten  the  fruit,  original 
righteousness  was  no  more.  Therefore  the  5th  proposition,  "  Thus 
original  righteousness  proves  to  be  far  worse  than  original  sin,"  is 
tlourish.  What  a  figure  does  this  fair  argument  make,  now  it  is 
turned  inside  out! 

From  all  this  it  may  appear,  that  the  doctrine  of  Original  Right- 
eousness, (as  well  as  that  of  Original  Sin,)  hath  a  firm  foundation  in 
Scripture,  as  well  as  in  the  attributes  of  a  wise,  holy,  and  gracious 
God. 

As  you  do  not  offer  any  new  argument  in  your  conclusion,  I  need 
not  spend  any  time  upon  it. 

You  subjoin  Remarks  on  Dr.  Watts's  additions  to  his  book,  (pv 
186.)     Some  of  these  deserve  a  serious  consideration. 

1 .  "  Either  the  new-created  man  loved  God  supremely,  or  not. 
If  he  did  not,  he  was  not  innocent :  since  the  very  law  and  light  of 


284  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  [PART  III.  §  8, 

nature  require  such  a  love  to  God.     If  he  did,  he  stood  disposed  for 
every  act  of  obedience.     And  this  is  true  holiness  of  heart." 

You  answer  (in  many  words)  "  The  new-created  man  did  not  love 
God  supremely.  For  before  he  could  love  God,  the  powers  of  his 
mind  must  have  been  quite  finished,  and  actually  exercised."  And 
doubtless  the  very  moment  he  was  created,  they  were  quite  finished 
and  actually  exercised  too.  For  man  was  not  gradually  formed  by 
God,  as  a  statue  is  by  a  human  artificer  :  but  '  he  spake  the  word, 
and  they  were  made  ;  he  commanded,  and  they  were  created.'  And 
as  light  and  heat  were  not  subsequent  to  the  creation  of  the  sun, 
but  began  to  exist  with  it,  so  that  the  moment  it  existed  it  shone, 
so  spiritual  light  and  heat,  knowledge  and  love,  were  not  subsequent 
to  the  creation  of  man  :  but  they  began  to  exist  together  with  him. 
The  moment  he  existed,  he  knew  and  loved. 

2.  "  If  the  new-made  creature  had  not  a  propensity  to  love  and 
obey  God,  but  was  in  a  state  of  mere  indifference  to  good  or  evi^ 
then  his  being  put  into  such  an  union  with  flesh  and  blood,  among  a 
thousand  temptations,  would  have  been  an  over-balance  on  the  side 
of  vice.  But  our  reason  can  never  suppose,  that  God  the  wise,  just, 
and  good,  would  have  placed  a  new-made  creature  in  such  a  situa- 
tion." 

This  argument  cannot  be  answered,  unless  it  can  be  showed^ 
either,  1.  That  in  such  a  situation,  there  would  not  have  been  an 
over-balance  on  the  side  of  vice  ;  or,  2.  That  to  place  a  new-made 
creature  in  a  situation  where  there  was  such  an  over-balance,  was 
consistent  with  the  wisdom,  justice,  and  goodness  of  God. 

But  instead  of  showing,  or  even  attempting  to  show  this,  you  feebly 
say,  "  I  do  not  think  the  reason  of  man  by  any  means  sufficient  to 
direct  God,  in  what  state  to  make  moral  agents."  (p.  187,  188.)  (O 
that  you  had  always  thought  so  !  How  much  vain,  yea,  mischievous 
reasoning,  had  then  been  spared  !)  "  But  however  Adam's  propen- 
sities and  temptations  were  balanced,  he  had  freedom  to  choose  evil 
as  well  as  good."  He  had.  But  this  is  no  answer  to  the  argument, 
which  like  the  former,  remains  in  its  full  force.  How  could  a  wise, 
just,  and  good  God,  place  his  creature  in  such  a  state  as  that  the 
scale  of  evil  should  preponderate  !  Although  it  be  allowed  he  is  in 
a  measure  free  still :  the  other  scale  does  not  "  fly  up  and  kick  the 
beam." 

3.  "  Notwithstanding  all  the  cavils  Avhich  have  been  raised,  yet  il 
these  two  texts  (Eph.  iv.  24,  Col.  iii.  10)  are  considered,  their  ob- 
vious meaning  will  strike  an  honest  and  unbiassed  reader.  The  new 
man,  or  the  principle  of  true  religion  in  the  heart,  is  created  by  God 
after  his  moral  image,  in  that  righteousness  and  true  holiness  wherein 
man  was  at  first  created."  (p.  189.) 

You  answer,  "  I  have  endeavoured  to  prove  the  contrary,  and  he 
does  not  offer  to  point  out  any  one  mistake  in  my  interpretations.'' 
I  have  pointed  out  more  than  one. 

4.  "  If  these  are  the  qualifications  with  which  such  a  new-made 
creature  should  be  endued,  and  these  the  circumstances,  wherein  from 


r.vnx  III.  §  0.]  oiUGixAL  si:v.  286 

the  wisdom,  justice,  and  goodness  of  God,  we  should  expect  him  to 
be  situate'd  :  then  by  a  careful  survey  of  what  man  is  now,  compared 
Avith  what  he  should  be,  we  may  easily  determine,  whether  man  is  at 
})resent  such  a  creature,  as  the  great  and  blessed  God  made  him  at 
lirst." 

You  answer,  (in  abundance  of  words,  the  sum  of  which  is  this,) 
*'  Our  circumstances  are,  on  the  whole,  far  better  than  Adam's  were. 
For  he  was  under  that  severe  law.  Transgress  and  die."  (p.  190.) 
He  was  so  :  but  this  does  not  prove  the  point  still,  balancing  this  sin- 
gle disadvantage,  (if  such  it  was  ;  for  even  that  may  be  disputed,) 
with  the  numerous  advantages  he  was  possessed  of,  with  the  holiness 
and  happiness  which  he  enjoyed,  and  might  have  enjoyed  for  ever, 
it  does  by  no  means  appear,  thi-t  the  present  circumstances  of  man- 
kind in  general  are  better  than  Adam's  were. 

5.  "  God  did  not  give  Noah  dominion  over  the  brute  creatures,  in 
so  ample  a  manner  as  he  did  to  Adam.  Fear  indeed  fell  on  the 
brutes  :  but  this  does  not  sufficiently  preserve  man  from  their  out- 
rage. In  the  innocent  state  no  man  would  have  been  poisoned  or 
torn  by  serpents  or  lions  as  now." 

You  answer,  "  The  second  grant  runs,  '  The  fear  of  you  and  the 
dread  of  you  shall  be  upon  every  beast  of  the  field,  and  upon  every 
fowl  of  the  air,  and  upon  all  that  moves  on  the  earth,  and  upon  all 
the  fishes  of  the  sea  :  into  your  hands  they  are  delivered.  Every 
moving  thing  that  liveth  shall  be  meat  for  you :  even  as  the  green 
herb  I  have  given  you  all  things.'  Now  this  grant  is  more  extensive 
than  the  first."  (p.  192.)  It  is  as  to  food ;  but  not  as  to  dominion 
The  liberty  of  eating  an  animal  does  not  necessarily  imply  any  do- 
minion over  it  at  all.  "  But  the  fear  and  dread  of  every  beast  are 
the  effects  of  dominion  in  man,  and  the  subjection  in  brutes."  Nay, 
neitlier  does /ear  necessarily  imply  dominion.  I  may  fear  what  has 
not  dominion  over  me,  and  what  1  am  not  subject  to.  And  those 
animals  may  fear  me,  over  which  nevertheless  I  have  not  dominion, 
neither  are  they  subject  to  me.  I  fear  every  viper,  yea,  every  poison- 
ous spider ;  and  they  fear  me  :  yet  neither  has  dominion  over  the 
other.  Fear  therefore  and  dread  may  be  in  a  high  degree  :  and  yet 
no  dominion  at  all.  But  they  are  "  all  delivered  into  our  hands.'''' 
Yes,  for  meat;  as  the  very  next  words  explain  that  expression. 
Whatever  therefore  it  may  "import  in  other  scriptures,"  the  meaning 
of  it  here  is  plain  and  certain. 

6.  "  Would  God  have  exposed  the  pure  and  innocent  works  ot 
his  hands,  to  such  unavoidable  perils  and  miseries,  as  arise  from 
bears,  tigers,  serpents,  precipices,  volcanoes,  &c." 

You  answer,  "  He  did  expose  innocent  Adam  to  a  peril  and  misery 
greater  than  all  these  put  together,  even  to  a  tempting  Devil."  (p. 
191,  192.)  I  reply,  1.  This  did  not  imply  any  unavoidable  misery 
at  all :  2.  It  implied  no  more  peril  than  God  saw  was  needful,  as  a 
test  of  his  obedience.  Therefore  this  has  no  parallel  case.  So  this 
argument  also  stands  unanswered. 

7.  "  It  has  been  said  indeed,  If  Adam  fell  into  Sin  though  he  was 


iQG  THE   DOCTRINE  OP  [PAET  UI.    §  8. 

innocent,  then  among  a  million  of  creatures  every  one  might  sin, 
though  he  was  as  innocent  as  Adam.  I  answer,  there  is  a  possibility 
of  the  event :  but  the  improbability  of  it  is  as  a  million  to  one.  I 
prove  it  thus.  If  a  million  of  creatures  were  made,  in  an  equal  pro- 
bability to  stand  or  fall ;  and  if  all  the  numbers  from  one  to  one  mil- 
lion inclusively  were  set  in  a  rank,  it  is  plainly  a  million  to  one,  that 
just  any  single  proposed  number  of  this  multitude  should  fall.  Now 
the  total  sum  is  one  of  these  numbers,  that  is,  the  last  of  them. 
Consequently  it  is  a  million  to  one  against  the  supposition,  that  the 
whole  number  of  men  should  fall.  And  this  argument  will  grow 
still  ten  thousarid  times  stronger,  if  we  suppose  ten  thousand  millions 
to  have  lived  since  the  creation." 

Your  argument  stood  thus.  "  If  we  cannot  infer  from  Adam's 
transgression,  that  his  nature  was  originally  corrupt,  neither  can  we 
infer  from  the  transgressions  of  all  mankind,  that  their  nature  is 
originally  corrupt."  It  is  answered,  "  If  a  million  creatures  were 
made  in  an  equal  probability  to  stand  or  fall,  it  is  a  million  to  one 
they  should  not  all  fall."  You  reply,  "  This  is  no  answer  to  my  ar- 
gument." Surely  it  is  ;  and  a  direct  answer.  That  one  man  sinned, 
does  not  prove  he  had  a  corrupt  nature.  Why  1  Because  (suppo- 
sing him  free  to  choose  good  or  evil)  it  was  as  probable  he  should  sin 
as  not,  there  being  no  odds  on  one  side  or  the  other.  But  that  all 
men  should  sin  does  prove  they  have  a  corrupt  nature  :  because  it  is 
not  as  probable,  that  all  men  should  sin,  as  that  one  man  should  :  the 
odds  against  it  being  as  a  million  or  rather  ten  thousand  millions  to 
one.  Either  therefore  we  must  allow,  that  mankind  are  more  in- 
clined to  evil  than  to  good,  or  we  must  maintain  a  supposition  so 
highly  improbable,  as  comes  very  near  a  flat  impossibility. 

And  thus  much  you  yourself  cannot  but  allow  :  "  The  reasoning 
may  hold  good,  where  all  circumstances  agree,  to  make  the  proba- 
bility equal  with  regard  to  every  individual  in  this  supposed  million." 
And  how  can  the  probability  be  other  than  equal,  if  every  individual 
be  as  wise  and  as  good  as  Adam  1  But  be  it  equal  or  not,  you  say, 
*'  The  case  is  not  to  be  estimated  by  the  laws  of  equal  probability, 
but  of  infection.  For  when  sin  is  once  entered  into  a  body  of  men, 
it  goes  on,  not  according  to  the  laws  of  chance,"  (is  this  precisely 
the  same  with  equal  probability  ?)  *'  but  the  laws,  as  I  may  say,  of 
infection."  But  how  came  sin  to  enter  into  a  body  of  men?  That  is 
the  very  question.  Supposing  first  a  body  of  sinners,  sin  "  may  as- 
sume the  nature  of  a  contagion."  But  the  difficulty  lies  against  sup- 
posing any  body  of  sinners  at  all.  You  say  indeed,  "  One  sinner 
produces  another,  as  the  serpent  drew  in  Eve  !  The  first  sin  and 
sinner  being  like  a  '  little  leaven  which  leavens  the  whole  lump.'  " 
All  this  I  can  understand,  supposing  our  nature  is  inclined  to  evil. 
But  if  not,  why  does  not  one  good  man  produce  another,  as  natu- 
rally as  one  sinner  produces  another  1  And  why  does  not  righteous- 
ness spread  as  fast  and  as  wide  among  mankind  as  wickedness  1  Why 
does  not  this  '  leaven  leaven  the  whole  lump,'  as  frequently,  as  rea- 
dily, and  as  thoroughly,  as  the  other  1    These  laws  of  infection  (so 


PART  III.   §  8.]  ORIGINAL  SIN.  287 

called)  will  therefore  stand  you  in  no  stead.  For,  (to  bring  the  mat- 
ter still  more  to  a  point,)  suppose  Adam  and  Eve  newly  infected  by 
sin  :  they  had  then  none  to  infect,  having  no  child.  Afterward  they 
repented  and  found  mercy.  Then  Cain  was  born  :  now  surely  nei- 
ther Adam  nor  Eve  would  infect  him  !  Having  suffered  so  severely 
for  their  own  sin  :  which  therefore  they  must  needs  guard  him 
against.  How  then  came  he  to  be  a  sinner?  "Oh,  by  his  own 
choice,  as  Seth  was  righteous."  Well :  afterwards  both  wicked  Cain 
and  good  Seth  begat  sons  and  daughters.  Now  was  it  not  just  as  pro- 
bable, one  should  infect  his  children  with  goodness,  as  the  other  with 
wickedness  ]  How  came  then  Cain  to  transmit  vice  any  more  than 
Seth  to  transmit  virtue  1  If  you  say,  "  Seth  did  transmit  virtue  : 
his  posterity  was  virtuous  till  they  mixed  with  the  vicious  offspring  of 
Cain."  I  answer,!.  How  does  that  appear  1  How  do  you  prove, 
that  all  the  posterity  of  Seth  was  virtuous  ?  But,  2.  If  they  were, 
why  did  not  this  mixture  amend  the  vicious,  rather  than  corrupt  the 
virtuous  ?  If  our  nature  is  equally  inclined  to  virtue  and  vice,  vice  is 
no  more  contagious  than  virtue.  How  then  came  it  totally  to  prevail 
over  virtue,  so  that  '  all  flesh  had  corrupted  themselves  before  the 
Lord  V  Contagion  and  infection  are  nothing  to  the  purpose  ;  seeing 
they  might  propagate  good  as  well  as  evil. 

Let  us  go  one  step  farther.  Eight  persons  only  were  saved  from 
the  general  deluge.  We  have  reason  to  believe,  that  four,  at  least, 
of  these,  were  persons  truly  virtuous.  How  then  came  vice  to  have 
a  majority  again,  among  the  new  inhabitants  of  the  earth  1  Had 
the  nature  of  man  been  inclined  to  neither,  virtue  must  certainly 
have  had  as  many  votaries  as  vice.  Nay,  suppose  man  a  reason- 
able creature,  and  supposing  virtue  to  be  agreeable  to  the  highest 
reason,  according  to  all  the  rules  of  probability,  the  majority  of 
mankind  must  in  every  age  have  been  on  the  side  of  virtue. 

8.  "Some  have  reckoned  up  a  large  catalogue  of  the  instances  of 
divine  goodness,  and  would  make  this  as  evident  a  proof  that  man- 
kind stands  in  the  favour  of  God,  as  all  the  other  instances  are,  of  a 
universal  degeneracy  of  man,  and  the  anger  of  God  against  them. 
But  it  is  easy  to  reply,  The  goodness  of  God  may  incline  him  to 
bestow  a  thousand  bounties  upon  criminals.  But  his  justice  and 
goodness  will  not  suffer  him  to  inflict  misery  in  such  an  universal  man- 
ner, where  there  has  been  no  sin  to  deserve  it  either  in  parents  or 
children." 

You  answer,  "  There  is  more  than  enough  sin  among  mankind, 
to  deserve  all  the  sufferings  God  inflicts  upon  them.  And  the 
Scriptures  represent  those  sufferings  as  disciplinary,  for  correction 
and  reformation."  What,  all  the  sufferings  of  all  mankind  1  This 
can  in  nowise  be  allowed.  Where  do  the  Scriptures  say,  that  all 
sufierings,  those  of  infants  in  particular,  are  purely  disciplinary,  and 
intended  only  "  for  correction  and  reformation  ?"  Neither  can  this 
be  reconciled  to  matter  of  fact.  How  did  the  sufferings  of  Grecian 
or  Roman  infants,  tend  to  their  correction  or  reformation  ?  Neither 


288  THE   DOCTEIXE   OF  [pART  III.  §  S- 

do  they  tend  to  the  correction  and  reformation  of  their  parents  or  of 
any  other  persons  under  heaven.  And  even  as  to  adults:  if  universal 
suffering  is  a  proof  of  universal  sin  ;  and  universal  sin  could  not  take 
place,  unless  men  were  naturally  prone  to  evil.  Then  the  present 
sufferings  of  mankind  are  a  clear  and  strong  evidence  that  their 
nature  is  prone  to  evil. 

9,  "  Notwithstanding  all  God's  provision  for  the  good  of  man,  still 
the  Scripture  represents  men,  while  they  are  in  their  fallen  state,  as 
destitute  of  God's  favour,  and  without  hope." 

You  answer,  "  How  can  men  be  destitute  of  God's  favour,  when 
he  has  vouchsafed  them  a  Redeemer  1"  (p.  207.)  By  destiiute  of 
God's  favour,  we  mean,  children  of  icrath,  objects  of  God's  displea- 
sure. And  because  they  were  so,  the  Redeemer  was  given,  to  re- 
concile them  to  God  by  his  own  blood.  But  notwithstanding  this, 
ichile  we  and  they  were  in  our  fallen  state,  we  were  all  objects  of 
God's  displeasure. 

"  But  how  can  they  be  without  hope,  when  he  hath  given  them  the 
hope  of  eternal  life  1"  All  men  who  are  not  born  again,  born  of  God, 
are  without  hope  at  this  day.  God  indeed  hath  given,  but  they  have 
not  accepted  '  the  hope  of  eternal  life.'  Hence  the  bulk  of  mankind 
are  still  as  void  of  this  hope  as  are  the  beasts  that  perish.  And  so 
(the  Scripture  declares)  are  all  men  by  nature,  whatever  difference 
grace  may  make.  'By  nature  all  are  children  of  wrath,  without 
hope,  without  God  in  the  world.' 

10.  "Doth  that  man  write  the  sincere  sense  of  his  own  mind  and 
conscience,  who  charges  the  expression.  Mam  was  on  trial  for  iis  all, 
with  this  inference,  "  That  we  are  none  of  us  in  a  state  of  trial  now, 
but  Adam  alone  was  upon  trial  for  us  all  1"  We  have  owned  and 
granted,  that  men  are  now  in  a  state  of  trial :  but  this  is  upon  th<.' 
foot  of  a  new  covenant." 

You  answer,  "  What  can  be  more  evident  than  that  according  to 
this  scheme  Adam  alone  was  to  be  upon  trial  for  us  all,  and  that 
none  of  Adam's  posterity  are  upon  personal  trial?"  (p.  209.)  Do 
you  not  see  the  ambiguity  in  the  word  alone  1  Or  do  you  see  and  dis- 
semble it  ]  Dr.  Watts  supposes,  that  Adam  alone,  that  is,  This  sin- 
gle person  was  on  trial  for  all  men.  Does  it  follow  from  hence,  that 
Adam  alone,  that  is,  no  other  person,  was  ever  in  a  state  of  trial? 
Again :  if  no  person  but  Adam  was  upon  trial  for  all  men,  will  it  follow, 
*'  no  person  but  Mam  was  upon  trial  at  alW"  It  is  really  hard  to  think, 
that  you  here  "speak  the  sincere  sense  of  your  own  mind  and  con- 
science." 

You  go  on,  "He  supposes  all  mankind  are  still  under  the  original 
covenant  with  Adam,  according  to  which  he  alone  was  upon  trial  for 
us  all,  and  none  of  his  posterity  are  upon  personal  trial."  He  does 
not  suppose  any  man  to  be  so  under  that  covenant,  as  to  supersede 
his  being  upon  personal  trial.  Yourself  add,  "I  knew  he  owned, 
we  are  upon  personal  trial,  and  that  all  mankind  are  now  under  the 
covenant  of  grace.  But  how  can  either  of  these  consist  with  the 
scheme  ?"  Both  of  them  consist  Avith  it  perfectly  well.     1.  Adam 


.VART  IV.]  ORIGINAL   SIN.  289 

alo7ie  or  single  wa.s,  in  some  sense,  on  trial  for  ail  mankind,  according 
to  the  tenor  of  the  old  covenant,  "Do  this  and  live."  2.  Adam  fel), 
and  hereby  the  sentence  of  death  came  on  him  and  all  his  poste- 
rity. 

3.  The  new  covenant  was  given,  whereby  all  mankind  were  put 
into  a  state  of  personal  trial.  Yet  still,  4.  Death,  the  penalty  of  the 
old  covenant,  came  (more  or  less)  on  all  mankind.  Now  all  this  i? 
well  consistent  with  itself,  as  well  as  with  the  tenor  of  Scripture. 

11.  "Mankind  is  represented  as  one  collective  body  in  several 
verses  of  the  5th  chapter  to  the  Romans." 

You  answer,  "  St.  Paul  always  distinguishes  between  Adam,  and 
ill  men,  his  posterity,  and  does  not  consider  Adam  with  all  men,  as 
one  creature."  (p.  211.)  What  then?  This  does  not  prove,  that  lie 
<3oes  not  represent  mankind  (Adam's  posterity)  as  one  collective  body. 

12.  "  All  that  is  contained  in  the  blessing  given  to  Noah  is  consist- 
ent with  the  curse  which  came  on  all  men  by  the  first  sin.  But  thai 
curse  is  not  consistent  with  the  original  blessing  which  Avas  given  to 
\dam." 

You  answer,  "  The  blessing  given  to  Noah,  was  the  very  same 
which  was  given  to  Adam."  (p.  212.)  .This  is  palpably  false.  The 
blessing  which  was  given  to  Adam  included,  1.  Freedom  from  pain 
and  death.  2.  Dominion  over  the  whole  brute  creation.  But  that 
given  to  Noah  did  not  include  either.  Yet  you  affirm,  "  It  is  renewed 
to  Noah,  without  any  manner  of  alteration,  after  pain  and  death  were 
introduced  into  the  world  !"  And  do  pain  and  death  then  make  no 
manner  of  alteration  ? 

13.  "  The  dominion  over  the  brutes  given  to  Adam  was  not  givcji 
to  Noah." 

Yoji  answer,  "Our  killing  and  feeding  upon  them  is  the  highest 
instance  of  dominion  over  them."  (p.  213.)  It  is  no  instance  of  it  of 
all.  I  may  shoot  a  bear  and  then  eat  him  :  yet  1  have  no  dominion, 
unless  it  be  over  his  carcass. 


PART  IV. 

Extracts  from  Dr.  Watts  and  Mr.  Ilebden. 

I  have  now  considered  what  is  material  in  your  Doctrine  of  Origi- 
7ial  Sin,  with  the  Supplement  and  Reply  to  Dr.  Watts.  And  this  I 
purposely  did  before  i  read  the  doctor's  book.  But  how  was  I  sur- 
prised on  reading  it,  to  observe  the  manner  wherein  you  have  treated 
it,  of  which  I  could  not  be  a  judge  before  !  The  frame  which  he  had 
so  beautifully  and  strongly  connected,  you  have  disjointed  and 
broken  in  pieces,  and  given  us  nothing  but  mangled  fragments  of  it, 
from  which  it  is  impossible  to  form  any  judgment  of  the  whole.  In 
order,  therefore,  to  do  justice  to  that  great  and  good  man,  as  well  as 

YoL.  9.— B  b 


290  THE  BOCTRIXE  OF  [PAET  IT. 

to  his  argument,  I  subjoin  an  Extract  of  so  nmcli  of  that  work  as 
directly  affects  the  main  question. 

I  the  rather  subjoin  this  and  the  following  extracts,  for  these  two 
reasons,  I .  Because  what  has  gone  before  being  purely  argumenta- 
tive, is  dry  and  less  profitable  to  the  generality  of  readers.  2.  Be- 
cause they  contain  one,  uniform,  connected  scheme  of  the  great  doc- 
trine which  I  have  been  hitherto  defending  :  and  which,  after  the  ob- 
jections have  been  removed  out  of  the  way,  may  be  more  clearly  un- 
derstood and  firmly  embraced. 

Introduction. 

*  "  Man  is  a  creature  made  up  of  an  animal  body  and  a  rational 
mind,  so  united  as  to  act  in  a  mutual  corres;  ondence  according  to 
certain  laws  appointed  by  his  Creator.  Now  suppose  the  blessed 
God,  who  is  perfect  in  wisdom  and  power,  in  justice  and  goodness, 
were  to  form  such  a  new  creature,  with  what  qualifications  may  we 
conceive  such  a  creature  would  be  endowed,  by  a  being  of  such 
Goodness,  Justice,  and  V/isdoml 

"  I .  We  cannot  but  conceive,  he  must  have  a  perfection  of  natural 
powers,  both  of  body  and  spirit,  as  united  together,  suited  to  his  pre- 
sent circumstances,  (p.  2.) 

"  Not  that  we  need  conceive,  man  would  be  made  so  perfect  a 
being  as  God  could  make  him.  For  the  wisdom  of  God  plainly  de- 
signed to  display  itself  in  the  different  ranks  and  orders  of  his  crea- 
tion. Nor  is  it  reasonable  to  suppose,  man  would  be  made  at  first 
with  such  sublime  perfections,  as  he  himself  might  afterwards  arrive 
at,  by  a  wise  improvement  of  his  powers.  But  still  the  creature  which 
was  designed  to  bear  the  nearest  likeness  of  his  oMaker  in  this  lower 
world,  must  have  powers  perfectly  sufficient  for  his  present  well- 
being,  and  acting  in  that  station  wherein  God  had  placed  him.  All 
his  senses  must  be  clear  and  strong,  his  linibs  vigorous  and  active, 
his  body  healthy  in  all  the  inward  and  outward  parts  of  it,  and  every 
natural  power  in  its  proper  order.  For  God  would  surely  form  such 
a  creature,  in  a  state  of  perfect  ease,  v.ithout  any  original  malady  of 
nature,  to  give  him  pain  or  sorrow,  (p.  3.)  Nor  could  there  be  any 
tendency  in  his  body  to  pain  or  disease  while  he  remained  without 
sin.  (p.  4.) 

"  And  as  the  powers  of  his  body  must  be  thus  perfect,  so  the  fa- 
culties of  his  soul  must  have  their  perfection  too. 

"  His  Understanding  must  have  that  knowledge  both  of  God  and 
his  creatures,  which  was  needful  for  his  happiness.  Not  that  he  was 
formed  with  all  knowledge  in  arts  and  sciences,  but  with  such  as  was 
requisite  to  his  peace  and  welfare.  His  reason  must  be  clear,  his 
judgment  uncorrupted,  and  his  conscience  upright  and  sensible. 

"  This  leads  me  to  speak  of  his  moral  perfection,  (p.  5.)  A  rational 
creature  thus  made,  must  not  only  be  innocent,  as  a  tree,  but  must 

*  Ruin  and  Recovery  of  Mankind,  p.  1. 


VARTIV.]  ORIGINAL  SIK.  20  J 

be  formed  hoi}'.  His  will  must  have  an  inward  bias  to  virtue  :  he 
must  have  an  inclination  to  please  that  God  who  made  him,  a  su- 
preme love  to  his  Creator,  a  zeal  to  serve  him,  and  a  tender  fear  of 
offending  him. 

"  For  either  the  new  created  man  loved  God  supremely,  or  not 
If  he  did  not  he  was  not  innocent,  since  the  law  of  nature  requires  a 
-supreme  love  to  God.  If  he  did  he  stood  ready  for  every  act  of 
obedience :  and  this  is  true  holmess  of  heart.  And,  indeed,  without 
this,  how  could  a  God  of  holiness  love  the  work  of  his  own  handsl 

"  There  must  be  also  in  this  creature  a  regular  subjection  of  the 
inferior  powers  to  the  superior.  Sense,  and  appetite,  and  passion 
must  be  subject  to  reason.  The  mind  must  have  a  power  to  govern, 
these  lower  faculties,  that  he  might  not  otfend  against  the  law  of  his 
creation. 

"  He  must  also  have  his  heart  inlaid  with  love  to  the  creatures, 
especially  those  of  his  own  species,  if  he  should  be  placed  among 
them :  and  with  a  principle  of  honesty  and  truth  in  dealing  with  them. 
And  if  many  of  these  creatures  were  made  at  once,  there  would  be 
no  pride,  malice,  or  envy,  no  falsehood,  no  brawls,  or  contentions 
among  them,  but  all  harmony  and  love.  (p.  6.) 

"  This  universal  righteousness,  which  is  the  moral  Image  of  God, 
is  far  the  noblest  part  of  that  image  in  which  Moses  represents  man 
to  have  been  orignally  created.  The  same  writer  assures  us,  that 
when  God  surveyed  all  his  works,  he  pronounced  them  very  good ! 
Agreeably  to  what  Solomon  assures  us  that  God  'made  man  upright»' 

"  It  is  true,  the  natural  image  of  God  in  which  man  was  created, 
I'onsisted  in  his  spiritual,  intelligent,  and  immortal  nature  ;  and  his 
political  image,  (if  I  may  so  speak,)  in  his  being  Lord  of  this  lower 
creation.  But  the  chief,  the  moral  part  of  his  image,  we  learn  from. 
.St.  Paul  to  have  been  the  rectitude  of  man's  nature :  Avho  in  his 
epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  (iv.  24.)  says,  that  the  image  of  God  in 
wliich  man  is  to  be  renewed,  and,  consequently,  in  which  he  was 
made,  consists  <  in  righteousness  and  true  hohness.' 

"H.  From  the  justice  and  goodness  of  God  we  may  infer,  that 
though  man  was  made  free,  with  a  power  to  choose  either  evil  or 
good,  that  he  might  be  put  into  a  state  of  probation,  yet  he  had  a  full 
sutficiency  of  power,  to  preserve  himself  in  love  and  obedience  to 
his  Creator,  and  to  guard  himself  against  every  temptation,  (p.  8.) 

"III.  It  is  highly  probable,  from  the  goodness  of  God,  that  such  a 
creature  would  be  made  immortal.  It  is  true  the  great  God  as  so- 
vereign Lord  of  his  creatures,  might  take  away  all  that  he  had  given. 
But  it  is  hard  to  suppose,  that  he  ever  would  have  destroyed  an  in- 
telligent creature,  who  had  continued  to  serve  and  please  him.  (p.  9.) 

"  It  is  also  probable,  that  he  was  endued  with  power  to  arrive  at 
higher  degrees  of  excellency  and  happhiess,  than  those  in  which  he 
was  formed  at  first :  and  hereby  he  was  greatly  encouraged  both  to 
watch  against  every  sin,  and  to  use  all  zeal  and  diligence  in  impro- 
ving the  powers  he  had  received. 


id'2,  THE   BOCTRIA'E   OP  [PART   IV, 

'<  IV.  We  may  add,  that  the  habitation  in  which  a  God  of  infinite 
-goodness  would  place  such  an  innocent  and  holy  creature,  would  be 
furnished  with  all  the  necessaries  and  conveniences  of  life,  and  pre- 
pared for  his  delight  as  well  as  safety.  And  so  Moses  tells  us,  that 
the  first  created  pair  were  placed  in  Eden,  a  garden  of  pleasure,  and 
were  made  lords  of  all  therein,  of  all  the  creatures,  animal  and  vege- 
table, that  were  round  about  them.  (p.  10.) 

"  Neither  can  we  conceive  that  any  thing  destructive  or  hurtful 
could  be  found  in  this  delightful  habitation,  but  what  man  would  have 
'•uffjcient  notice  of,  with  sufficient  power  to  oppose  or  avoid  it. 

"  V.  And  if  this  creature  had  power  to  propagate  its  kind,  the 
child  must  be  innocent  and  holy,  and  equally  capable  of  persevering: 
in  virtue  and  happiness,  (p.  11.) 

"Now  if  we  may  judge  from  the  wisdom,  justice,  and  goodness  of 
God,  that  these  are  the  qualifications  with  which  such  a  new-made 
creature  would  be  endued,  these  the  circumstances  in  which  he  would 
be  situated,  then  by  a  careful  survey  of  what  mankind  is  now,  we 
may  easily  judge  whether  man  is  now  such  a  creature  as  the  great 
and  blessed  God  made  him  at  first  1  And  this  is  the  subject  of  the 
ensuing  inquiry. 

QUESTION  I. 

"Is  man  in  his  present  circumstances  such  a  creature  as  he  came 
out  of  the  hands  of  God  his  Creator  1"  We  may  derive  a  full  answer 
to  this  inquiry  from  the  following  considerations,  (p.  12.) 

"  1.  This  earth,  which  was  designed  for  the  habitation  of  man, 
carries  evident  tokens  of  ruin  and  desolation,  and  does  not  seem  to 
be  ordained  in  its  present  form  and  circumstances,  for  the  habitation 
of  innocent  beings ;  but  is  apparently  fit  for  the  dwelling-place  of 
creatures  who  are  degenerate  and  fallen  from  God. 

"  It  is  granted  that  the  beauty  and  order  of  this  lower  world,  even 
in  its  present  constitution,  and  the  wonderful  texture,  composition,  and 
harmony  of  the  several  parts  of  it,  both  in  air,  earth,  and  sea,  do  still 
illustriously  display  the  power,  wisdom,  and  goodness  of  their  Creator, 
(p.  13.)  Yet  it  must  be  confessed  also,  that  there  are  glaring  proofs, 
of  the  terrors  of  his  justice,  and  the  execution  of  his  vengeance. 

"Is  not  the  present  shape  of  our  earth,  in  its  divisions  of  seas  and 
shores,  rude  and  irregular,  abrupt  and  horrid  1  -Survey  a  map  of  the 
world,  and  say,  Does  the  form  of  it  strike  our  eyes  with  any  natural 
beauty  and  harmony  1  Rather  does  it  not  strongly  bear  on  our  sight 
the  idea  of  ruin  and  confusion  1  Travel  over  the  countries  of  this 
globe,  or  visit  several  parts  of  this  island.  What  various  appear- 
ances of  a  ruined  world  '.  What  vast  broken  mountains  hang  over  the 
heads  of  travellers  !  What  stupendous  cliffs  and  promontories  rise, 
high  and  hideous  to  behold  !  What  dreadful  precipices,  which  make 
us  giddy  to  look  down,  and  are  ready  to  betray  us  into  destruction  1 
What  immense  extents  are  there  in  many  countries  of  vast  and  bar- 
ren ground  !  What  vast  and  almost  impassable  deserts  !  What  broad 


TART    IV.]  ORIGIJSWL   SIX-  293 

and  faithless  morasses,  which  are  made  at  once  both  death  and 
graves  to  unwary  travellers  !  What  liugo  ruinous  caverns,  deep  and 
wide,  big  enough  to  bury  whole  cities  !  (p.  14.) 

"  What  resistless  deluges  of  water,  in  a  season  of  great  rains,  corae 
rolling  down  the  hills,  bear  all  things  before  them,  and  spread  spa- 
cious desolation  !  What  roaring  and  tremendous  water-falls  in  se- 
veral parts  of  the  globe  !  What  burning  mountains,  in  whose  ca- 
verns are  lakes  of  liquid  tire,  ready  to  burst  upon  the  lower  lands  ! 
Or  they  are  a  mere  shell  of  earth,  covering  prodigious  cavities  of 
smoke,  and  furnaces  of  flame  :  and  seem  to  wait  a  divine  com- 
mand, to  break  inward  and  bury  towns  and  provinces  in  fiery  ruin, 
(p.  15.) 

"  What  active  treasures  of  wind  are  pent  up  in  the  bowels  of  the 
earth,  ready  to  break  out  into  wide  and  surprising  mischief!  What 
huge  torrents  of  water  rush  and  roar  through  the  hollows  of  the 
globe  we  tread  !  What  dreadful  sounds  and  threatening  appearances 
from  the  region  of  meteors  in  the  air  !  What  clouds  charged  with 
flame,  ready  to  burst  on  the  earth  and  discompose  and  terrify  all 
nature  ! 

"  When  I  survey  such  scenes  as  these,  I  cannot  but  say  within 
mj'self,  "surely  this  earth,  in  these  rude  and  broken  appearances, 
this  unsettled  and  dangerous  state,  was  designed  as  a  dwelling  for 
some  unhappy  inhabitants,  who  did  or  would  transgress  the  laws  of 
their  iNIaker,  and  merit  desolation  from  his  hand.  And  he  hath 
here  stored  up  his  magazines  of  divine  artillery  against  the  day  of 
punishment."  (p.  16.) 

"  How  often  have  the  terrible  occurrences  of  nature  in  the  air, 
earth,  and  sea,  and  the  calamitous  incidents  in  several  countries, 
given  a  strong  confirmation  of  this  sentiment ! 

"  What  destructive  storms  have  we  and  our  fathers  seen  even  in 
this  temperate  island  of  Great  Britain  !  What  floods  of  water  and 
violent  explosions  of  fire  do  we  read  of  in  the  histories  of  the  world  f 
What  shocking  convulsions  of  the  globe,  stretching  far  and  wide 
under  the  atfrighted  nations  !  What  huge  disruptions  of  the  caverns 
of  the  earth,  with  tremendous  bellowings,  which  have  filled  its  inha- 
bitants with  terror  and  astonishment,  and  made  wide  devastations  I 
AVould  a  good  and  gracious  being  have  originally  so  formed  the  in- 
animate parts  of  this  lower  world,  as  to  produce  such  deadly  con- 
cussions therein,  and  such  desolating  appearances,  had  he  not  de- 
signed it  for  the  habitation  of  such  creatures,  as  he  foresaw  would" 
deserve  these  strokes  of  his  indignation]   (p.  17.) 

"And  thus  both  Moses  and  St.  Peter  suppose  Go'd  to  have  laid 
up  stores  of  ruin  and  destruction  within  the  bowels  of  the  earth, 
that  he  might  break  open  his  dreadful  treasures  of  flood  and  fire  at 
proper  seasons,  to  drown  and  to  burn  the  world,  together  with  the 
.sinful  inhabitants  thereof  (p.  18,  19.) 

"  Now  the  great  God,  who  appointed  such  prodigious  quantities 
both  of  water  and  fire  to  be  reserved  in  the  bowels  of  the  earth,  and 
among  the  clouds  of  heaven,  for  such  a  foreseen  day  of  general  de- 

B  b  3 


S9'l  THE    DOCTRINE   01  [PART  IV. 

struction,  did  also  doubtless  prepare  the  materials  of  all  the  lesser 
storms  and  hurricanes,  earthquakes  and  floods,  and  convulsions  oi 
nature  ;  and  treasured  up  for  these  purposes  his  magazines  of  wind, 
and  flood,  and  fire  in  the  earth.  And  is  this  an  habitation  prepared 
jbr  the  residence  of  pure  and  holy  beings  ?  Is  this  such  a  peaceful 
place,  as  a  kind  Creator  would  have  formed  for  innocent  creatures  '^ 
[t  is  absurd  to  imagine  this  of  a  God  so  wise,  so  righteous,  and  so 
merciful,  (p.  20.) 

'-  2.  Let  us  take  a  survey  of  the  vegetables  which  grow  out  of 
the  earth,  witii  the  brute  animals  which  are  found  on  the  surface  of 
it,  and  we  shall  find  more  reasons  to  conclude  that  man,  the  chief 
inhabitant,  is  not  such  as  he  came  first  out  of  his  Maker's  hand. 

"  It  must  be  granted  here  again,  that  the  wisdom  and  goodness  of 
the  Creator  are  amazingly  displayed,  in  the  animal  and  the  vegetable 
world,  beyond  the  utmost  reach  of  our  thoughts  or  praises.  But 
still  we  may  have  leave  to  inquire,  whether  if  man  had  continued  in- 
nocent, among  the  numerous  herbs  and  flowers  fitted  for  his  support 
and  delight,  any  plants  or  fruits  of  a  malignant,  mortal  nature,  would 
have  grown  ou-t  of  the  earth,  without  some  plain  mark  or  caution  set 
upon  them'?  (p.  21.) 

"  Can  we  suppose  that  among  the  roots,  herbs,  and  trees,  good 
for  food,  the  great  God  would  have  suffered  mischief,  malady,  and 
deadly  poison,  to  spring  up  here  and  there,  without  any  sufficient 
distinction,  that  man  might  know  how  to  avoid  them  1  This  is  the 
case  in  our  present  world  :  disease,  anguish,  and  death,  have  entered 
into  the  bowels  and  veins  of  multitudes,  by  an  innocent  and  fata! 
mistake  of  these  pernicious  things,  for  proper  food. 

"  There  was  indeed  the  Tree  of  Knowledge  in  Paradise.  But  man 
was  expressly  cautioned  against  it.  And  certainly  had  he  continued 
holy,  no  poisonous  plant  would  have  been  suffered  to  grow  on  the 
earth,  without  either  some  natural  mark  set  upon  it,  or  some  divine 
i'aution  to  avoid  it.  (p.  22.) 

"Proceed  to  the  animal  world.  There  are  many  creatures  in- 
deed, which  serve  the  use  or  pleasure  of  man.  But  are  there  not 
many  other  sorts,  which  he  is  neither  a,ble  to  govern,  nor  to  resist? 
And  by  which  all  his  race  are  exposed,  whenever  they  meet  them. 
to  wounds,  and  anguish,  and  death  1  (p.  23,) 

"  If  man  had  not  sinned,  would  there  have  been  in  the  world  any 
such  creatures  as  bears  and  tigers,  wolves  and  lions,  animated  with 
such  fierceness  and  rage,  and  armed  with  such  destructive  teeth  and 
talons  ?  Would  the  innocent  children  of  men  have  ever  be^n  formed 
to  be  the  living  prey  of  these  devourers  ?  Were  the  life  and  limbs 
of  holy  creatures  made  to  become  heaps  of  'agonizing  carnage  % 
Or  would  their  flesh  and  bones  have  been  given  up  to  be  crushed 
and  churned  between  the  jaAvs  of  panthers  and  leopards,  sharks  and 
crocodiles  ]  Let  brutes  be  content  to  prey  on  their  fellow  brutes, 
but  let  man  be  their  lord  and  ruler. 

"  If  man  were  not  fallen,  would  there  have  been  so  many  tribes 
'f  the  serpent-kind,  armed  with  deadly  venom  1    Would  such  subtle 


PART  rv.]  ORIGINAL  SIN.  295 

and  active  mischiefs  have  been  made  and  sent  to  dwell  in  a  world  of 
innocents  1  And  would  the  race  of  all  these  murderers  and  de- 
structive animals,  have  been  propagated  for  six  thousand  years,  in 
any  province  of  God's  dominion,  had  not  its  rational  inhabitants 
been  in  rebellion  against  God]  (p.  24.) 

"  What  are  the  immense  flights  of  locusts  which  darken  the  sky^ 
and  lay  the  fields  desolate  '?  What  are  the  armies  of  hornets  or  mus- 
quetoes,  that  frequently  make  a  pleasant  laud  almost  intolerable  ? 
If  they  are  found  in  the  heats  of  Africa,  and  of  the  East  and  West 
Indies,  one  would  think  they  should  not  infest  the  Polar  regions,  if 
the  Creator  had  not  designed  them  for  a  scourge  to  the  nations  on 
iill  sides  of  the  globe. 

"  What  are  the  innumerable  host  of  caterpillars  but  so  many  mes- 
sengers of  the  anger  of  God  against  a  sinful  race  1  And  since  we 
can  neither  resist  nor  subdue  them,  we  may  certainly  infer,  that  we 
are  not  now  such  favourites  of  heaven,  as  God  at  first  made  us. 
(p.  25.) 

"  The  troublesome  and  pernicious  tribes  of  animals,  both  of  larger 
and  smaller  size,  which  are  fellow-commoners  with  us  on  this  great 
globe,  together  with  our  impotence  to  prevent  or  escape  their  mis- 
chiefs, is  a  sufficient  proof  that  we  are  not  in  the  full  favour  and 
love  of  the  God  that  made  us,  and  that  he  has  quartered  his  armies, 
his  legions  among  us,  as  princes  do  in  a  rebellious  province. 
•*  "  It  is  true  all  these  are  trials  for  man  during  his  state  of  proba- 
tion. But  a  state  of  probation  for  innocent  man  would  not  have 
included  death ;  much  less  a  violent  and  bloody,  or  a  lingering  and 
painful  death.  Accordingly,  our  return  to  dust  is  mentioned  by 
Closes  as  a  curse  of  God  for  the  sin  of  man.  And  when  once  hfe 
is  forfeited  by  all  mankind,  then  a  painful  death  may  properly  be- 
come a  part  of  the  further  trial  of  such  creatures  as  are  to  rise 
again :  and  any  pious  sufierers  may  be  rewarded  by  a  happy  resur- 
rection. But  a  painful  death  could  never  be  made  a  part  of  the 
trial  of  innocent  creatures,  who  had  never  forfeited  life,  nor  were 
ever  legally  subjected  to  death,   (p.  26,  27.) 

"  Upon  the  whole,  therefore,  such  noxious  and  destructive  plante 
and  animals  could  not  be  made  to  vex  and  disturb,  to  poison  and 
destroy,  a  race  of  innocent,  intellectual  beings. 

"  3.  The  manner  of  our  entrance  into  lite  is  another  proof  of 
universal  sin.  (p.  29.)  Would  the  great  and  good  God  have  ap- 
pointed intellectual  animals,  had  they  been  sinless,  to  be  propagated 
in  such  a  way  as  should  necessarily  give  such  exquisite  pain  and  an- 
guish to  the  mothers  who  bring  them  forth  ]  And  if  the  contagion 
had  not  been  universal,  why  should  such  acute  pangs  attend  almost 
every  female  parent  1  Are  not  the  multiplied  sorrows  with  which 
the  daughters  of  Eve  bring  forth,  an  evident  token  that  they  are  not 
in  their  original  state  of  favour,  with  that  God  who  created  their 
iuid  pronounced  a  blessing  upon  them  in  their  propagation  1^ 

*  "  The  author  has  been  ceasured  here  for  not  dropping  a  tear  over  the  fair  sex  uiir 


S96  THE   DOC'TEINE   OF  [PA»T  IV. 

"  Moses  informs  us,  that  God  blessed  the  first  pair,  and  bid  them 
^  be  fruiiful,  and  multiply,  and  replenish  the  earth,  and  subdue  it :' 
and  soon  after  tells  us,  that  these  ynultiplied  so^roivs  in  child-birth 
are  a  curse  from  an  offended  God.  Surely  the  curse  is  not  as  old 
as  ihe  blessing ;  but  sm  and  sorrow  came  in  together,  and  spread  a 
wide  curse  over  ihe  birth  of  man,  which  belbre  stood  only  under  a 
divine  benediction.  Not  that  the  blessing  is  now  quite  taken  away, 
though  the  pams  of  child-bearing  are  added  to  it.  And  daily  expe- 
rience proves,  this  curse  is  not  taken  away  by  the  blessing  repeated 
to  Noah. ' 

"  4.  Let  us  consider  in  the  next  place,  how  the  generality  of  man- 
kind are  preserved  in  life.  Some  tew  have  their  Ibod  without  care 
or  toil :  but  millions  of  human  creatures,  in  all  the  nations  of  the 
earth,  are  constrained  to  support  a  wretched  life  by  hard  labour 
What  dreadful  risks  of  Hfe  or  limbs,  do  multitudes  run,  to  pur- 
chase their  necessary  food  "^  What  waste  of  the  hoiu-s  of  sweet  re- 
pose, Avhat  long,  and  slavish,  and  paniful  toils  by  day,  do  multitudes 
sustain  in  order  to  procure  their  daily  nourishment  ?  It  is  by  the 
Sweat  of  their  brows  they  obtain  their  bread  :  it  is  by  a  continual  ex- 
hausting their  spirits,  that  many  of  them  are  forced  to  relieve  their 
own  hunger,  and  to  teea  their  helpless  offspring. 

"  If  we  survey  the  lower  ranks  of  mankind,  even  in  England,  in 
a  land  of  freedom  and  plenty,  a  climate  temperate  and  fertile,  which 
abounds  with  corn,  and  fruits,  and  rich  variety  of  food :  yet  what  a*, 
hard  shitl;  do  ten  thousand  families  make  to  support  life  ?  Their 
whole  time  is  devoured  by  bodily  labour,  and  their  souls  almost  eaten 
up  with  gnawing  cares,  to  answer  that  question.  What  shall  I  eat, 
and  what  shall  I  drink  1  Even  in  the  poorest  and  coarsest  manner  'i- 
But  if  we  send  our  thoughts  to  the  sultry  regions  of  Africa,  the  frost 
and  snows  of  Norway,  the  rocks  and  deserts  of  Lapland  and 
northern  Tartary,  what  a  frightful  thing  is  human  life  1  How  is  the 
rational  nature  lost  in  slavery,  and  brutality,  and  incessant  toils,  and 
hardships  1  They  are  treated  like  brutes  by  their  lords,  and  they 
live  like  dogs  and  asses,  among  labours  and  wants,  hunger  and  wea- 
riness, blov/s  and  burthens  without  end.  Did  God  appoint  this  for 
innocents'?  (p.  30,  3L) 

"  Is  the  momentary  pleasure  of  eating  and  drinking  a  recompense 
for  incessant  labour  1  Does  it  bear  any  proportion  to  the  length  of 
toil,  pain,  and  hazard,  wherewith  the  provisions  of  life  are  procured  ? 
Moses  thought  not.  When  he  speaks  of  man's  '  eating  bread  in  the 
sweat  of  his  brow,'  he  acknowledges  this  to  be  another  of  the  curses 
of  God  for  the  sin  of  man.  (p.  32.) 

"  It  is  strange  that  any  man  should  say,  ^<  In  this  sentence  of  God, 
no  curse  is  pronounced  upon  either  Adam's  body,  soul,  or  posterity  : 
that  the  sorrow  of  child-bearing  is  not  inflicted  as  a  curse  :  that  the 
labours  of  life  were  increased,  but  not  as  a  curse  :  that  death  was 

der  their  sorrows  and  acute  pains.     But  he  imagines,  he  has  been  dropping  tears  in . 
avery  page,  and  that  over  every  part  of  mankind.''    Undoubtedly  he  has  •'  and  if  so, 
'iOiY  unjust,  how  cruel  is  that  censure  / 


PART  IV.]  ORIGINAL   SIN.  297 

not  a  curse."  I  would  fain  ask,  what  is  a  curse,  if  some  natural  evil 
pronounced  and  executed  upon  a  person  or  thing,  be  not  so  ?  Es- 
pecially when  it  is  pronounced  on  account  of  sin,  and  by  God  him- 
self, as  supreme  Governor  and  Judge  ?  And  even  the  curse  on  the 
ground  falls  properly  on  the  person  who  tills  it. 

•'  It  is  granted,  God  can  turn  curses  into  blessings.  Yet  these 
evils  were  originally  pronounced  and  inflicted  as  a  curse  or  punishment 
of  sin,  as  it  is  written,  '  Cursed  is  every  one  who  continueth  not  in 
all  things.'  And  that  death  was  designed  as  a  curse  on  man  for  siii 
is  evident ;  for  Christ  suffered  that  curse  for  us. 

5.  "  Consider  the  character  of  mankind  in  general  with  regard  to 
religion  and  virtue,  and  it  will  be  hard  to  believe  they  bear  the  image 
of  their  common  father  in  knowledge  and  holiness.  Some  I  grant, 
are  renewed  in  his  image  :  but  the  bulk  of  the  woild  are  of  another 
stamp  ;  and  sufficiently  show,  there  is  some  fatal  contagion  spread 
through  this  province  of  God's  dominion.  So  ISt.  John  tells  us,  that 
except  the  few  who  are  born  of  God,  <  the  whole  world  lieth  in  wick- 
edness.' p.  33. 

"  And  can  we  think  of  that  gross  and  stupid  ignorance  of  God, 
which  reigns  through  vast  tiacts  of  Asia,  Africa,  and  America,  and 
the  thick  darkness  which  buries  all  the  Heathen  countries,  and  re- 
duces them  almost  to  brutes  :  can  we  think  of  the  abominable  idola- 
tries, the  lewd  and  cruel  rites  of  worship  which  have  been  spread 
through  whole  nations ;  the  impious  and  ridiculous  superstitions 
which  are  now  practised  among  the  greatest  part  of  the  world  :  and 
yet  believe  the  blessed  God  would  put  such  wretched  polluted  work- 
manship out  of  his  pure  hands  ?  (p.  34.) 

"  Can  we  survey  the  desperate  impiety  and  profaneness,  the 
swearing,  and  cursing,  and  wild  blasphemy,  that  is  practised,  day  and 
night  among  vast  multitudes  of  those  who  profess  to  know  the  true 
God:  can  we  behold  that  almost  universal  neglect  of  God,  of  his 
fear,  his  worship,  and  the  obedience  due  to  him,  which  is  found  even 
among  them  who  are  called  Christians  ;  and  yet  imagine,  that  these 
bear  that  image  of  God,  in  which  they  were  created  1 

"  Nor  have  men  forgot  God  only,  but  they  seem  also  to  have 
abandoned  their  duties  to  their  fellow-creatures  also.  Hence  the 
perpetual  practices  of  fraud  and  villany  in  the  commerce  of  man- 
kind, the  innumerable  instances  of  oppression  and  cruelty  which  run 
through  the  world  ;  the  pride  and  violence  of  the  great,  the  wrath, 
ambition,  and  tyranny  of  princes,  and  the  endless  iniquities  and  mis- 
chiefs that  arise,  from  malice,  envy,  and  revenge,  in  lower  people. 
If  we  add  to  these  the  impure  scenes  of  lust  and  intemperance,  which 
defy  the  day  and  pollute  the  darkness  :  with  the  monstrous  barbari- 
ties which  are  continually  committed  by  the  Heathen  savages  in  Af- 
rica and  America,  (some  of  whom  kill  and  roast  their  fellow-crea- 
tures, and  eat  up  men  as  they  eat  bread,)  and  by  the  Christian  sa- 
vages in  the  Inquisition  established  in  Asia,  as  well  as  in  many  parts 
of  Europe  :  can  we  still  imagine,  that  mankind  abide  in  that  state, 
wherein  they  came  from  the  hands  of  their  Maker]  (p.  35.) 


•SDfl  THE   DOCTRIJTE   OF  [PART  IV.. 

"  That  far  the  greatest  number  of  men  are  evil,  was  the  known  sen- 
timent of  the  wiser  Heathens,  (p.  37.)  They  saw  and  bewailed  the 
undeniable  fact,  though  they  knew  not  how  to  account  for  it.  O^ 
TrM'ovii  KXKoi.  Most  men  are  wicked,  was  a  common  observation  among 
them.  Even  the  poets  could  not  but  see  this  obvious  truth.  So 
Virgil  brings  in  Anchises,  telling  his  son,  Few  are  happy  in  the  other 
world  : 

Pauci  lata  arva  tencmus. 

And  in  this  hfe,  Horace  remarks  of  men  in  general, 

J^itimur  in  velitum  semper,  cupimusque  negata  ; 

We  are  always  desiring  and  pursuing  forbidden  things.  Nay  he 
says, 

Vitiis  nemo  sine  nascitur ;  No  man  is  born  without  vices :  and  givcF 
this  character  of  young  men  in  general. 

Cereus  in  vitiumjiecti ;  monitoribus  asper.  Seneca  says  just  the 
same, 

Pejora  juvenes  facile  prcecepta  audhinl : 

Young  men  readily  hearken  to  evil  counsels  ;  they  are  soft  as  wax^ 
to  be  moulded  into  vice,  but  rough  and  rugged  to  their  best  monitors, 
"  Juvenal  abounds  with  the  same  accounts  of  human  nature  ; 

Qua  tamfesta  aies,  ut  cesset  prodere  furem  ? 

Ad  mores  natura  recurrit 
Damnatos,fixa  et  mtUari  nescia. 
Q,hisnam  hooimum  est,  quern  tu  contentum  videris  tmo 
Flagitio  7  Dociles  imilandis 

Turpibiis  et  pravis  omnes  sumus. 

''  6.  And  not  only  they  of  riper  age,  but  even  those  of  tendeX 
years,  discover  the  principles  of  iniquity  and  seeds  of  sin.  What 
young  ferments  of  spite  and  envy,  what  native  wrath  and  rage,  are 
found  in  the  little  heftrts  of  infants,  and  sufficiently  discovered  by. 
their  hands,  and  eyes,  and  countenances,  before  they  can  speak  or 
know  good  from  evil !  What  additional  crimes  of  lying  and  deceit, 
obstinacy  and  perverseness  proceed  to  blemish  their  younger  years  I 
(p.  41.) 

"  How  little  knowledge  or  thought  of  God,,  their  Creator  and 
Governor,  is  found  in  chilciren  when  they  can  distinguish  good  and 
evil  ?  What  an  utter  disregard  of  him  that  made  them,  and  of  the 
duties  they  owe  to  him  'I  And  when  they  begin  to  act  according  to 
^heir  childish  age,  hov/  Uttle  sense  have  they  of  what  is  morally  right 
and  good  ?  How  do  evil  passions  or  irregular  appetites  continually 
prevail  in  t'lem  1  Even  from  iheir  nrst  capacity  of  acting  as  moral 
creatures,  how  are  they  led  away  to  practise  falsehood  and  injury  to 
their  play-fellows,  perhaps  with  cruelty  or  revenge  %  How  often 
are  they  engaged  in  boL'  disobedience  to  their  parents  or  teachers? 
And  whence  does  this  arise  1  What  is  the  root  that  brings  forth  such 
early  bitter  fruit  ?  (p.  42,  43.) 

^'  It  cannot  be  imputed  to  custom,  education,  or  example ;  for 
many  of  these  things  appear  in  children  before  they  can  take  any 
notice  of  ill  examples,  or  are  capable  of  imitating  them.     And  evea 


VART  IV.  ]  ORIGINAL   SIX.  299 

where  there  arc  only  good  examples  about  them,  and  where  the  best 
and  earliest  instructions  are  given  them,  and  inculcated  ^v'ith  the 
utmost  care,  yet  their  hearts  run  astray  from  God.  The  far  greatest 
part  of  them  visibly  follow  the  corrupt  influences  of  sense,  appetite, 
passion,  and  manifest  very  early  the  evil  principles  of  stubbornness, 
pride,  and  disobedience,  (p.  44.) 

"  To  give  a  still  fuller  confirmation  of  this  truth,  that  mankind 
have  a  corrupt  nature  in  them,  let  it  be  observed,  that  where  persons 
have  not  only  had  all  possible  helps  of  education  from  their  parents, 
but  have  themselves  taken  a  religious  turn  betimes,  what  a  perpetual 
Iiinderance  do  they  find  within  themselves  1  What  inward  opposi^ 
tions  work  in  their  heart,  and  perhaps  interrujit  their  holy  course  of 
life  !  What  vanity  of  mind,  what  irregular  appetites,  what  forgetful- 
iiess  of  God,  what  evil  thoughts  and  tendencies  of  heart  rise  up  in 
contradiction  to  their  best  purposes  !  Insomuch  that '  there  is  not  a 
just  man  upon  earth,  who,'  through  his  whole  life,  'doth  good  and 
sinnethnot.'  (p.  45,  46.) 

"  To  sum  up  the  three  last  considerations.  If  the  bulk  of  man- 
kind are  grossly  sinful,  and  if  every  individual  without  exception  is 
actually  a  sinner  against  the  law  of  his  Creator :  if  sinful  propensi- 
ties appear  even  in  our  most  tender  years  ;  and  every  child  becomes 
an  actual  sinner  almost  as  soon  as  it  becomes  a  moral  agent :  then 
we  have  just  reason  to  conclude,  that  there  is  some  original  taint 
spread  through  the  whole  race  of  men  from  their  birth. 

"  It  has  been  said  indeed,  that  '  if  the  first  man  fell  into  sin^ 
though  he  was  innocent  and  perfect,  then  among  a  million  of  men, 
every  one  might  sin,  though  he  was  as  innocent  and  perfect  as 
Adam.'  (p.  47.) 

'^'  I  answer.  There  is  a  bare  possibility  of  the  event ;  but  the  im- 
probability of  it  is  in  the  proportion  of  a  million  to  one. 

"  And  I  prove  it  thus.  If  a  million  of  creatures  were  made  in  an 
equal  probability  to  stand  or  fall :  and  if  all  the  numbers  from  one 
to  one  million  inclusively,  were  set  in  a  rank,  it  is  a  miUion  to  one 
that  just  any  single  proposed  number  of  all  these  should  fall  by  sin. 
Now  the  total  sum  is  one  of  these  numbers,  that  is,  the  last  of  them. 
Consequently  it  is  a  million  to  one  against  the  supposition  that  the 
•  \  hole  number  of  men  should  fall. 

"  And  yet  farther,  if  they  were  all  made  (as  the  goodness  of  God 
seems  to  require)  in  a  greater  probability  of  standing  than  falling, 
then  it  is  abundantly  more  than  a  million  to  one,  that  all  should  sin 
Avithout  exception.  And  the  argument  grows  still  ten  thousand 
times  stronger,  if  we  suppose  ten  thousand  millions  to  have  lived 
since  the  creation,  (p.  48.) 

"  8.  That  man  is  a  fallen  creature,  appears  further  from  hence  : 
i\o  man  is  able  by  his  present  natural  powers  to  perform  that  law  of 
his  Creator  which  is  still  written  upon  his  heart."  (p.  49.) 

"  Does  not  this  law  require  us  to  love  God  with  all  our  hearts,  to 
do  to  others  as  we  would  they  should  do  to  us,  and  to  govern  our 
senses,  appetites,  and  passions ;  by  the  rules  of  reason  1     Does  it 


300  THE   DOCTRINE   OT  [PAUT  IV. 

not  require  that  these  things,  whether  they  regard  God,  ourselves^ 
or  others,  should  be  done  perfectly,  without  defect  ?  Doth  it  not  de- 
mand, that  we  should  fear,  honour,  and  trust  the  great  God,  and 
obey  all  his  will  in  a  perfect  manner  ?  Doth  it  not  prescribe  constant 
justice,  truth,  and  goodness,  toward  our  neighbour,  without  one 
covetous  wish,  one  act  of  the  will,  or  tongue,  or  hand,  contrary  to 
truth  or  love  1  Does  it  not  demand,  that  every  sense,  appetite,  and 
passion,  should  be  perfectly  subject  to  reason  1  Now  is  there  a  man 
on  earth,  who  can  say,  "  I  am  able  by  my  natural poxoers  to  do  this  ?" 
(p.  50.) 

"  Even  the  outward  temptations  to  which  man  is  exposed,  are 
evidently  too  strong,  to  be  effectually  and  constantly  resisted,  by  his 
now  enfeebled  reason  and  conscience  :  while  at  the  same  time  his 
will,  his  appetites,  and  passions,  have  a  powerful  propensity  to  com- 
ply -with  them."  (p.  31.) 

"  Now  would  a  just,  a  wise,  and  merciful  God  have  formed  in- 
tellectual creatures,  in  such  a  wretched  state,  with  powers  and  ca- 
pacities so  much  below  their  duties,  that  they  break  his  law  daily  and 
continually,  and  are  not  able  to  help  it  1"  (p.  52.) 

"  Should  it  be  said,  '  God  cannot  require  more  than  we  are  able 
to  perform.'  You  have  an  answer  in  your  own  bosom.  For  you 
know  and  feel  God  does  require  this,  even  by  the  law  he  has  written 
in  your  heart :  yet  you  feel  you  are  not  able  to  perform  it,  untie  or 
cut  the  knot  how  you  may. 

«f  Should  it  be  said  again,  '  God  pities  and  pardons  feeble  crea- 
tures,' I  answer,  1 .  According  to  the  covenant  of  grace  he  does, 
but  not  according  to  the  law  of  creation.  But,  2.  Did  God  make 
some  of  his  noblest  creatures,  so  feeble  in  their  original  state,  as 
continually  to  offend,  and  want  pardon?  Did  he  give  them  such  a 
law  as  should  never,  never  be  fulfilled  by  any  one  of  them  ?  Would 
a  God  who  adjusts  the  proportions  of  all  things  with  the  exactest 
wisdom,  give  a  law  to  his  creatures  so  disproportionate  to  their 
original  powers,  that  even  in  the  state  of  their  creation,  they  are  un- 
der a  necessity  of  breaking  it,  and  stand  in  need  of  daily  forgiveness] 
Does  not  this  single  consideration  prove,  that  man  is  now  a  degene- 
rate being,  and  not  such  as  he  was  at  first  created,  by  the  wise,  the 
righteous,  the  merciful  God  1"  (p.  54.) 

"  If  you  who  are  most  unwilling  to  acknowledge  the  fall  of  man, 
would  but  look  into  yourself  daily,  and  observe  all  the  sinful  and  ir- 
regular turns  of  your  own  heart :  how  propense  you  are  to  folly,  in 
greater  or  less  instances,  how  soon  appetite  and  passion  oppose  rea- 
son and  conscience  :  how  frequently  you  fall  short  of  the  demand  of 
the  perfect  law  of  God  :  how  thoughtless  and  forgetful  you  are  of 
your  Creator,  how  cold  and  languishing  your  affection  to  him  :  how 
little  delight  you  have  in  virtue,  or  in  communion  with  God  :  could 
you  think  you  are  such  an  innocent  and  holy  creature  as  God  at 
first  created  you  1  And  that  you  have  been  such  even  from  your 
childhood  ?  Surely  a  more  accurate  observation  of  your  own  heart 
must  convince  you,  that  you  yourself  are  degenerated  from  the  first 
rectitude  of  your  nature."  (p.  55.) 


TART  IV.]  ORIGINAL   SIN.  501 

9.  "Another  proof  of  the  degeneracy  of  mankind  is  this,  they 
are  evidently  under  the  displeasure  of  God,  which  could  not  be  in 
their  primeval  state.  As  we  have  taken  a  short  view  of  the  sins  oj 
men,  let  us  also  briefly  survey  the  miseries  of  mankind,  and  see  how 
these  consist  with  their  being  in  the  favour  of  God.  (p.  5Q.) 

*'  Think  on  the  thousands  of  rational  creatures  descending  hourly 
to  the  grave  :  a  few,  by  some  sudden  stroke  :  but  far  the  greater 
part  by  painful  and  slow  approaches.  The  grave  !  A  dark  and 
shameful  prison!  Which  would  never  have  been  made  for  creatures 
persisting  in  innocence,  and  abiding  in  the  favour  of  him  that  gave 
them  life  and  being.  Death  is  the  wages  of  sin  ;  and  from  this  pun- 
ishment of  sin,  none  of  mankind  can  claim  a  discharge. 

"  Had  they  stood,  can  we  think  any  of  them  would  have  died  ? 
Much  less  every  one  of  them  1  And  especially  that  half  the  human 
race  should  have  been  doomed  to  die  before  seven  years  old  1  Be- 
fore they  reach  the  tenth  part  of  the  present  age  of  man,  or  have 
done  any  thing  in  life  worth  living  for  ]  (p.  57.) 

"  But  let  us  proceed  to  other  miseries  that  attend  us,  and  hasten 
us  down  to  the  grave. 

"  Think  next  of  the  multitudes  that  are  racked  day  and  night  by 
the  gout  and  stone,  the  cholic  and  rheumatism,  and  all  manner  o( 
acute  and  painful  diseases :  and  then  sa},  Would  a  merciful  God 
have  contrived  these  torments  for  sinless  creatures  1  Think  of  the 
dismal  scenes  of  war  and  bloodshed  that  have  by  times  overspread 
all  nations  !  Cast  your  thought  on  a  field  of  battle,  where  thousands 
of  men  are  destroyed  like  brute  beasts,  and  perish  by  sharp  and 
bloody  strokes,  or  by  the  fatal  engines  of  death.  See  thousands 
more  lie  on  the  cold  ground,  with  their  flesh  and  limbs  battered  and 
torn,  wounded  and  panting  in  extreme  anguish,  till  the  murmuring 
soul  takes  its  flight !  Are  these  the  signals  of  their  Maker's  love, 
■and  of  his  image  in  which  they  were  created]  (p.  59.) 

"  Think  of  the  numbers  that  are  swallowed  up  in  the  mighty 
waters,  by  the  rage  of  stormy  winds  and  seas.  Review  the  multi- 
tudes that  have  been  swept  away  by  the  pestilence,  or  consumed  by 
the  tedious  agonies  of  famine.  Would  famine  and  pestilence,  with 
all  the  train  of  lingering  horrors  which  attend  them,  have  ever  been 
made  for  innocent  creatures,  to  have  swept  away  whole  nations  of 
them  of  every  age  and  sex,  men,  women,  and  children,  without  dis- 
tinction'? (p.  59.) 

"  Think  yet  again,  what  numbers  of  men  have  been  crushed  into 
miseries  and  death,  and  buried  by  earthquakes.  Or  have  had  their 
bones  disjointed,  and  their  flesh  painfully  battered  by  the  fall  of 
houses  :  perhaps  buried  alive  in  the  ruins  of  entire  towns  or  villages, 
while  their  neighbours  have  been  drowned  in  multitudes,  by  the  dis- 
mal eruptions  of  water,  or  destroyed  by  deluges  of  liquid  fire  burst- 
ing out  of  the  earth.  Would  a  God  of  goodness  and  justice  have 
treated  innocent  creatures  in  this  manner?  (p.  60.) 

"  Carry  your  thoughts  to   the  countries  of  those  savages,  where 
thousands  of  their  conquered  enemies,  or  prisoners  of  war,  are 
Vol.  9.— C  c 


302  THE   DOCTKES'E   OF  [pART  IT, 

offered  in  sacrifice  to  their  idols,  or  tortured  and  roasted  to  death  by 
slow  fires  !  Add  this  to  all  the  former  miseries,  and  then  let  calm  re- 
flection say,  whether  this  world  does  not  look  like  a  province  half 
forsaken  of  its  gracious  Governor  1 

"Some  perhaps  will  say,  it  is  but  a  small  part  of  mankind,  who 
are  involved  in  these  dreadful  calamities  :  and  they  may  suffer  pecu- 
liar afflictions,  for  their  own  personal  iniquities,  (p.  61.) 

"I  answer.  Take  a  just  survey  of  those  who  have  suffered  thus, 
and  there  is  not  the  least  reason  to  think  they  were  sinners  above 
others.  Do  not  these  calamities  spread  through  whole  countries 
and  involve  the  best  and  the  worst  of  men  together  1  Whole  nations 
suffer  by  them  at  once.  And  indeed  such  is  the  corruption  of  hu- 
man nature,  that  wherever  they  come  they  find  none  innocent. 
And  it  is  the  general  situation  of  mankind,  under  the  just  displeasure 
of  God,  which  exposes  them  to  such  destruction. 

"But  to  proceed.  Think  of  the  innumerable  common  misfortunes 
that  attend  human  life  !  What  multitudes  perish  by  these  in  one 
week!  And  how  much  larger  a  number  do  these  accidents  injure 
and  fill  their  lives  with  pain,  though  they  are  not  brought  immedi- 
ately to  the  grave !  Think  of  the  mischiefs  which  one  part  of  man- 
kind, in  every  place,  are  continually  contriving  or  practising  against 
the  other.  Take  a  view  of  these  extensive  and  reigning  evils,  and 
then  say  whether  this  world  be  not  a  part  of  the  creation  of  God, 
which  bears  plain  marks  of  its  Creator's  displeasure  1  (p.  62.) 

"Much  is  added  to  the  heap  of  human  miseries  by  the  sor- 
rows that  arise  from  the  daily  loss  of  our  dearest  comforts.  What 
groans  and  wailings  of  the  living  surround  the  pillows  of  dying  friends 
or  relations  !  What  symptoms  of  piercing  distress  attend  the  remains 
when  they  are  conveyed  to  the  grave  !  By  such  losses,  the  comforts 
of  future  life  lose  their  relish,  and  the  sorrows  are  doubly  embittered, 
(p.  63.) 

"In  the  civilized  parts  of  the  world,  there  is  scarcely  one  person 
sick  or  in  pain,  miserable  or  dying,  but  several  others  sustain  a  con- 
siderable share  of  misery,  by  the  strong  ties  of  nature  or  friendship. 
This  diffuses  a  personal  calamity  through  whole  families.  This  mul- 
tiphes  human  miseries  into  a  new  and  endless  number.  Add  to  this, 
not  only  the  unkindness  or  falsehood  of  those  from  whom  we  ex- 
pected the  tenderest  affection,  but  the  anguish  which  springs  from 
all  our  own  uneasy  and  unruly  passions.  Bring  in  here  all  the 
wrath  and  resentment  in  the  hearts  of  men,  all  the  envy  and  malice 
Ihat  burn  within,  all  the  imaginary  fears,  and  the  real  terrors  of  fu- 
ture distress  coming  upon  us,  all  the  rage  and  despair  of  lost  blessings 
that  were  once  within  our  hopes,  and  all  the  ferments  of  animal 
nature  which  torment  the  spirit  all  day,  and  forbid  our  nightly  repose. 
Would  mankind  be  in  such  a  condition  as  this  if  they  were  still  in 
the  favour  of  their  Maker?  (p.  64.) 

"  Yes,  men  may  make  miseries  for  themselves,  and  be  punished 
by  them.  But  compare  the  sorrows  which  any  man  necessarily  suf- 
fers, with  the  comforts  he  enjoys,  and  the  one  will  balance  the  other. 


V.«iRT  IV.]  ORIGINAL   SIX.  303 

Or  if  his  sorrows  outweigh  his  comforts,  this  may  be  necessary  in  a 
state  of  trial:  and  God  will  reward  the  over-balance  of  sufferings 
hereafter."  (p.  65.) 

"  I  answer,  There  is  no  reason  to  think  the  far  greater  part  of 
mankind  will  have  any  reward  hereafter:  and  if  not,  how  shall  we 
account  for  this  over-balance  of  sufierings  with  regard  to  them? 
Therefore  we  cannot  reasonably  impute  their  superior  sorrows 
merely  to  their  being  in  a  state  of  probation:  but  rather  to  the 
displeasure  of  the  righteous  Creator  and  Governor  of  the  world, 
(p.  66.) 

10  "To  make  this  still  clearer.  Not  only  those  who  are  grown 
up  in  the  practice  of  iniquity,  who  may  be  punished  for  their  own 
sins,  but  all  mankind  in  their  very  infancy  bear  the  tokens  of  God's 
displeasure. 

"  Before  children  are  capable  of  committing  sin,  they  are  subject 
to  a  thousand  miseries.  What  anguish  and  pain  are  they  frequently 
exposed  to,  even  as  they  are  coming  into  the  world,  and  as  soon  as 
they  arc  entered  into  it.  What  agonies  await  their  birth  !  What 
numerous  and  acute  maladies  are  ready  to  attack  them  !  What  gripes, 
what  convulsions,  what  inward  torments,  which  bring  some  of  them 
down  to  death,  within  a  few  hours  or  days  after  they  have  begun  to 
live  !  And  if  they  survive  a  few  months,  what  torture  do  they  find  in 
breeding  their  teeth,  and  other  maladies  of  infancy,  which  can  be 
told  only  by  shrieks  and  tears,  and  that  for  whole  days  and  nights  to- 
gether !  What  additional  pains  do  they  often  sustain  by  the  negli- 
gence of  their  mothers,  or  cruelty  of  their  nurses,  whereby  many 
of  them  are  brought  down  to  the  grave,  either  on  a  sudden  or  by 
slow  and  painful  degrees  !  (p.  67.) 

^'  And  what  shall  we  say  of  whole  nations  in  elder  times,  and  some 
even  at  this  day,  who  when  they  cannot  or  will  not  maintain  them, 
expose  their  children  in  the  woods  to  be  torn  and  devoured  by  the 
next  wild  beast  that  passes  by  !  Add  to  this  the  common  calamities 
in  which  infants  are  involved  by  fire,  earthquake,  pestilence.  And 
there  are  a  thousand  other  accidents  which  attend  them,  whereby 
their  members,  their  natural  powers,  receive  dismal  injuries  :  so 
that  perhaps  they  drag  on  through  life  with  blindness,  deafness,  lame- 
ness, or  distortion  of  body  or  limbs.  Sometimes  they  languish  on 
to  manhood,  or  even  old  age,  under  sore  calamities,  which  began 
almost  as  soon  as  their  being,  and  which  are  only  ended  by  death, 
(p.  68.) 

"  Now  as  these  sufferings  cannot  be  sent  upon  them  to  correct 
their  personal  sins,  so  neither  arc  they  sent  as  a  trial  of  their  virtue : 
for  they  have  no  knowledge  of  good  or  evil.  Yet  we  see  multitudes 
of  these  little,  miserable  beings.  And  are  these  treated  as  innocent 
creatures?  Or  rather  as  under  some  general  curse,  involved  in  some 
2:eneral  punishment?   (p.  69.) 

"  But  may  not  these  sufferings  of  children  be  for  the  punish- 
ment of  the  sins  of  their  parents?"  (p.  71.) 

•'Not  with  any  justice  or  equity,  unless  the  sins  of  the  parents  are 


304  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  [PART  IV 

imputed  to  their  children.  Besides,  many  of  the  parents  of  these 
suffermg  children  are  dead  or  absent,  so  as  never  to  know  it.  And 
how  in  these  cases  can  it  be  a  punishment  for  their  parent's  sin,  any 
otherwise  than  as  it  is  a  general  punishment  for  the  sin  of  their  first 
parent? 

"But  God  recompenses  them  for  these  sufferings  hereafter." 
Where  does  the  Scripture  affirm  this?  Besides  many  of  them  grow 
up  to  manhood.  And  if  they  prove  wicked  and  are  sent  to  hell  at 
last,  what  recompense  have  they  for  their  infant  sufferings?  Or  will 
you  say,  God  punished  them  before  they  had  sinned,  because  he 
knew  beforehand  they  would  sin  ?  Yet  farther  :  what  wise  or  good 
design  can  this  their  punishment  answer,  when  no  creature  can  know 
what  they  are  punished  for,  if  it  be  not  for  that  which  affects  all  man- 
kind 1 

"  But  how  are  such  miseries  reigning  among  his  creatures  con- 
sistent with  the  goodness  of  God?"  Perfiectly  well;  if  we  consider 
mankind  as  a  sinful,  degenerate  part  of  God's  creation.  It  is  most 
abundant  goodness  that  they  have  any  comforts  left,  and  that  their 
miseries  are  not  doubled.  Now  the  inspired  writers  do  consider 
mankind  as  fallen  from  God ;  and  so  his  goodness  is  evident  in  a 
thousand  instances :  though  it  must  be  confessed  there  are  also  a 
thousand  instances  of  his  just  hatred  of  sin,  and  his  righteous  punish- 
ments among  all  rifitions.  (p.  73.) 

11.  "  If  we  put  together  ah  these  scenes  of  vice  and  misery,  it  is 
.evident  that  creatures  lying  in  such  deplorable  circumstances,  are 
not  such  as  they  came  out  of  the  hands  of  their  Creator,  who  is  wise, 
holy,  and  good.  His  wisdom,  which  is  all  harmony  and  order,  would 
not  suffer  him  to  frame  a  whole  race  of  beings,  under  such  wild  and 
innumerable  disorders,  moral  as  well  as  natural.  His  holiness  would 
not  permit  him  to  create  beings  with  innate  principles  of  iniquity : 
iior  his  goodness  to  produce  a  whole  order  of  creatures  in  such  cir- 
cumstances of  pain,  torment,  and  death,  (p.  74.) 

"  Could  the  holy  and  blessed  God  originally  design  and  frame  a 
whole  world  of  intelligent  creatures,  in  such  circumstances,  that 
every  one  of  them  coming  into  being,  according  to  the  laws  of  na- 
ture, in  a  long  succession  of  ages,  in  different  climates,  of  difierent 
constitutions  and  tempers,  and  in  ten  thousand  difierent  stations  and 
conditions  of  life  :  that  every  one  of  them  should  break  the  laws  of 
reason,  and  more  or  less  defile  themselves  with  sin  1  That  every  one 
should  offend  his  Maker,  every  one  become  guilty  in  his  sight  ?  Every 
one  expose  himself  to  God's  displeasure,  to  pain,  and  misery,  and 
mortality,  without  one  single  exception  1  If  men  were  such  creatures 
as  God  at  first  made  them,  would  not  one  man  among  so  many  mil- 
lions have  made  a  right  use  of  his  reason  and  conscience,  and  so  have 
avoided  sin  and  death  ?  Would  this  have  been  the  universal  conse- 
quence of  their  original  constitution,  as  framed  by  the  hand  of  a  wise, 
holy,  merciful  God  1  What  can  be  more  absurd  to  imagine  than  this? 
Surely  God  made  man  upright  and  happy  :  nor  could  all  these  mis- 
chiefs have  come  directly  from  our  Creator's  hand.  (p.  75,  76.) 


S?A11T  IV.]  ORIGINAL   SlN.  305 

"  Is  it  objected,  that  '  still  the  greater  part  of  men  have  more  moral 
good  than  evil  in  theni,  and  have  more  pleasure  than  pain ;  and 
therefore,  on  the  whole,  mankind  are  sinful  and  miserable ;  and  thfit 
even  the  best  human  constitutions,  lay  some  innocent  persons,  under 
unavoidable  hardships.'  I  answer,  1.  In  order  to  pronounce  a  man. 
miserable,  he  must  have  more  pain  than  pleasure  :  but  in  order  to 
pronounce  a  man  a  siiiner,  there  is  no  need,  that  his  moral  evil  should 
exceed  his  good.  If  a  man  had  a  hundred  virtues,  one  vice  would 
make  him  a  criminal  in  the  sight  of  God  :  one  transgression  of  the 
law  of  his  Creator,  would  lay  him  under  his  just  displeasure.  He 
that  keeps  the  whole  law,  except  in  one  point,  affronts  that  authority 
which  requires  all  obedience.  All  men  therefore  are  under  this  con- 
demnation; they  are  sinners  every  one  of  them.  (p.  77.) 

"As  to  misery,  let  it  be  supposed  (though  by  no  means  granted) 
that  there  are  many  whose  pleasures  exceed  their  uneasiness  :  yet  it 
is  certain,  there  are  more,  whose  pains  and  uneasiness  far  exceed 
their  pleasures.  And  it  is  hard  to  conceive,  how  this  should  be,  if 
all  men  were  innocent  and  happy  by  nature. 

"  I  answer,  2.  Men  are  not  able  to  frame  such  constitutions  in 
every  case,  as  shall  secure  happiness  to  all  the  innocent.  Their 
narrow  views  of  things  do  not  enable  them  to  provide  against  all  fu- 
ture inconveniences.  But  it  is  not  thus  with  the  Creator  and  Go- 
vernor of  all  things.  He  views  at  once  all  possibles  and  all  futures. 
Therefore  he  is  well  able  to  guard  against  any  inconvenience  that 
might  befall  innocent  beings,  (p.  78.) 

"  I  answer,  3.  Though  the  bulk  of  mankind  were  happy  in  the  pre- 
sent constitution  of  things,  this  gives  no  manner  of  satisl'action  to  an^ 
one  individual,  who  is  unhappy,  without  any  demerit :  the  advantage 
of  the  majority  is  no  reason  at  all,  why  any  one  innocent  should  suf- 
fer. If  any  one  therefore,  man  or  child,  and  much  more,  if  numbers 
of  them,  have  more  pain  than  pleasure,  they  must  be  involved  in  some 
guilt,  which  may  give  just  occasion  to  their  misery,   (p.  79.) 

12.  "  To  enforce  this,  after  the  survey  of  these  pains  and  sorrows,, 
let  us  consider  what  are  the  pleasures  of  the  bulk  of  mankind.  Cast 
a  glance  at  tbe  sports  of  children,  from  five  to  fifteen  years  of  age. 
What  toys  and  fooleries  are  these  1  Would  a  race  of  wise  and  holy 
beings,  waste  so  many  years  of  early  life  in  such  wretched  trifles  ? 
And  as  for  our  manly  years,  what  are  the  greatest  part  of  the  delights 
of  men,  but  silly  and  irrational,  if  not  grossly  sinful  1  What  are  the 
pleasures  even  of  the  rich  and  great,  to  relieve  them  under  the  com- 
mon sorrows  of  life  ]  If  they  be  not  luxury  and  intemperance,  are 
they  not  furniture  and  equipage,  finery  of  dress  and  gay  appearances? 
To  shine  in  silks  of  various  dye,  and  blaze  in  the  splendour  of  gold 
and  jewels  1  Now  would  wise  and  holy  creatures  have  made  this  the 
inatter  of  their  joy  and  pleasure,  J\Iy  coat  is  gayer  than  your^s,  and  L 
have  more  glittering  things  about  me  than  you 'have !  (p.  80,  81.) 

"  Others  call  for  cards  or  dice,  to  divert  their  trouble  and  pass 
away  their  time.  How  inexpressibly  trifling  are  these  sports,  if  mere 
ijversiou  be  sought  therein  ?  But  if  the  design  be  gain,  how  is  the. 

C  c  2 


306  THE   DOCTKINE   OF  [ PART  IV 

game  mingled  with  uneasy  fears,  with  the  working  of  various  pas- 
sions 1  Which  in  case  of  disappointment  and  loss,  often  break  out 
into  wrath  and  fury  ! 

"  Again.  What  multitudes  drench  themselves  in  gross  sensuali- 
ties, as  their  chief  delight  1  They  make  a  god  of  their  belly,  till  they 
overload  nature,  and  make  haste  to  disease  and  death.  They  drown 
their  cares  and  their  senses  together  ;  or  they  bury  them  in  sensual 
impurities,  (p.  82.) 

"  Others  release  themselves  from  the  troubles  of  life,  by  gadding 
abroad  and  mixing  with  impertinent  company.  Some  delight  in 
wanton  jest,  in  fooHsh  merriment,  in  mean  and  trifling  conversation  ; 
a  little  above  the  chattering  of  monkeys  in  a  wood,  or  the  chirping  oi' 
crickets  upon  a  hearth.  Nay,  perhaps  it  is  their  diversion,  to  rail  at 
their  neighbours,  to  murder  the  reputation  of  the  absent.  This  is 
their  mirth  and  recreation  ;  these  their  reliefs  against  the  common 
miseries  of  human  life  !  (p.  83.) 

"  But  would  a  race  of  innocent  beings  flee  to  such  mean  and 
foolish,  or  criminal  refuges  from  pain  as  these  1  Would  they  pursue 
such  vain  and  vile  delights  1  Would  they  become  rivals  to  the  beasts 
of  the  field  ?  Or  sport  themselves  as  devils  do,  in  accusing  their  fel- 
low-creatures 'I  Surely  if  we  survey  the  very  pleasures,  as  well  as 
the  sorrows,  of  the  bulk  of  mankind,  we  may  learn  from  thence,  that 
we  are  by  no  means  such  creatures  as  we  were  originally  created. 

"  I  need  but  add  one  more  proof  of  the  general  ruin  of  human 
jiature.  We  are  all  posting  to  the  grave.  Every  one  of  us  arc 
succeeding  our  neighbours,  into  some  unknown,  invisible  world. 
And  we  all  profess  to  believe  this.  Yet  how  exceedingly  few  arc 
solicitous  about  this  great  and  awful  futurity  '?  Though  we  are  ex- 
posed to  so  many  sins  and  miseries  in  this  life,  and  are  hastening 
visibly  and  hourly  to  the  end  of  it,  yet  how  few  are  there  that  make 
any  careful  preparation  for  a  better  state  than  this  !  What  multitudes 
are  daily  running  down  into  darkness,  speeding  to  an  endless  dura- 
tion in  an  unknown  country,  without  any  earnest  inquiries  about  the 
manner  of  existence  there  !  They  walk  over  the  busy  stage  of  life, 
they  toil  and  labour,  or  play  and  trifle  awhile  here,  and  then  plunge 
into  a  strange,  unseen  world,  where  they  will  meet  with  a  just  and 
holy  God,  whose  wisdom  will  assign  them  a  place  and  portion  suited 
to  their  own  character.  Now  were  men  indeed  wise  and  holy- 
could  they  remain  so  ignorant  and  thoughtless  of  that  state,  into 
which  they  are  all  hastening  1  Or  could  a  gracious  God  create  a 
i^ace  of  beings,  in  such  a  stupid  insensibility  of  their  eternal  inter- 
ests, so  unsuited  to  the  felicities  of  an  immortal  spirit,  and  so  negli- 
gent of  all  preparations  for  them  ?  (p.  85.) 

"Upon  this  whole  survey,  reason  must  join  in  this  mournful 
confession,  that  there  must  be  some  spreading  poison  which  has 
tainted  our  nature,  made  us  so  sinful  and  miserable,  so  thoughtless  oi^ 
the  future,  and  unprepared  for  it.  There  must  have  been  some 
general  revolt  of  mankind  from  their  Creator,  whereby  they  have 
i'uined  their  innocence  and  peace,  and  provoked  the  anger  of  their 


rART    IV.]  ORIGINAL    SIX.  307 

Maker,  whereby  they  become  exposed  to  such  wretched  cireum-^ 
stances,  even  in  their  infancy  and  childhood,  as  well  as  when  the} 
grow  to  years  of  ripe  understanding,  (p.  86.) 

"  And  methinks  when  I  take  a  just  survey  of  this  world,  with 
all  the  inhabitants  of  it,  I  can  look  upon  it  no  otherwise,  than  as  a 
grand  and  magnificent  structure  in  ruins  :  wherein  lie  millions  of 
rebels  against  their  Creator,  under  condemnation  to  misery  and 
death :  who  are  at  the  same  time  sick  of  a  moral  distemper,  and 
disordered  in  their  minds  even  to  distraction.  Hence  proceed  those 
numberless  follies  and  vices  which  are  practised  here  ;  and  the  right- 
eous anger  of  an  offended  God  visible  in  ten  thousand  instances. 
Yet  are  there  proclamations  of  divine  grace,  health  and  life  sound- 
ing among  them  ;  though  very  few  take  any  notice  thereof.  Only 
here  and  there  one  attends  to  the  call,  and  complies  with  the  pro- 
posals of  peace.  His  sins  are  pardoned  and  healed.  And  though  his 
body  goes  down  to  the  dust  for  a  season,  his  soul  is  happy  with  God  : 
while  the  bulk  of  those  criminals,  despising  all  the  offers  of  mercy, 
perish  in  their  own  wilful  madness  !  (p.  89,  90.) 

"  What  is  the  chief  temptation  that  leads  some  men  to  deny  so 
glaring  a  truth  'I  Is  it  that  they  cannot  give  a  satisfactory  account  ot 
some  of  the  difficulties  that  attend  it  1  Nay,  many  even  of  the  hea- 
then philosophers  believed  it,  from  their  own  experience,  and  their 
daily  survey  of  mankind  :  though  they  were  utterly  at  a  loss,  how 
tt)  account  for  it.  And  what  if  we  could  not  assign  a  sufficient  and 
satisfactory  reason  for  it  1  Or  show  how  this  spreading  degeneracy 
began,  or  how  it  came  to  take  place  so  universally  1  What  if  we 
were  still  at  a  loss  to  explain  how  all  this  guilt  and  misery  came  upon 
us,  must  we  therefore  deny  the  things  which  we  see  and  hear,  and 
feel  daily  1  (p.  91.) 

"  Can  we  account  for  all  the  secret  things  in  the  creation  of  Godi 
And  must  we  deny  whatever  we  cannot  account  for'?  Does  any 
man  refuse  to  believe,  that  the  infinite  variety  of  plants  and  flowers, 
in  all  their  beauteous  colours  and  forms,  grow  out  of  the  same  earth, 
because  he  does  not  know  all  the  springs  of  their  vegetation  ?  Do 
men  doubt  of  a  loadstone's  drawing  iron  to  itself,  because  they  can- 
not find  out  the  way  of  its  operation  1  Are  we  not  sure  that  food 
\iourishes  our  bodies,  and  medicines  relieve  our  pains  ?  Yet  we 
know  not  all  the  ferments  and  motions  of  those  atoms,  by  which 
we  are  relieved  and  nourished.  Why  then  should  we  deny  that  de- 
generacy of  our  nature,  which  admits  of  so  full  and  various  proof- 
though  we  are  not  able  to  account  for  every  circumstance  relating 
to  it,  or  to  solve  every  difficulty  that  may  attend  it  ?'  (p.  92.) 


^08  THE    DOCTBINE    t)T  [PART  I\ 


QUESTION  II. 

How  came  Vice  and  Misery  lo  overspread  Mankind  in  all  JVations 
and  in  all  Ages  ?   {p.  94.) 

"  HEATHEN  Philosophers  could  never  answer  this  :  but  Chris- 
tians iiiay,  from  the  Oracles  of  God. 

These  inform  us,  that  the  first  man  was  a  common  head  and  repre- 
sentative of  all  mankind  :  and  that  he  by  sinning  against  his  Maker, 
lost  his  holiness  and  happiness  :  and  exposed  himself  and  his  poste- 
rity (whom  he  naturally  produced  and  whom  he  legally  represented) 
to  the  displeasure  of  his  Maker,  and  so  spread  sin  and  misery  through 
his  whole  offspring,  (p.  102.) 

So  St.  Paul,  '  As  by  one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world,  and 
death  by  sin,  even  so  death  passed  upon  all  men,  for  that  all  have 
sinned.'  (Rom.  v.  12.)  All  are  esteemed  in  some  sort  guilty  before 
God,  though  they  '  did  not  sin  after  the  similitude  of  Adam's  trans- 
gression.' They  did  not  commit  actual  personal  sin  against  a 
known  law  as  Adam  did. 

"  This  may  more  fully  appear  from  the  following  particulars. 

"  1.  It  is  plainly  taught  us  in  Scripture,  that  God  at  first  created 
one  man  and  woman  called  Adam  and  Eve  ;  and  from  them  is  de- 
rived the  whole  race  of  mankind  :  '  God  hath  made  of  one  blood,' 
as  the  apostle  observes,  '  all  nations  of  men,  to  dwell  on  all  the  face 
of  the  earth.' 

2.  "  God  created  man  at  first  in  a  holy  and  happy  state,  in  hi? 
own  likeness,  and  in  his  favour,  (p.  160.)  'And  God  said,  let  us 
make  man  in  our  own  image,  after  our  own  likeness.'  (Gen.  i.  26.) 
And  that  none  of  the  brute  creation  might  molest  him,  but  all  of 
them  be  for  his  service,  he  said,  'Let  them  have  dominion  over  the 
fish,  and  the  fowl,  and  the  cattle.' — '  So  God  created  man  in  his  own 
image.'  And  what  this  image  consisted  in,  beside  his  spiritual  and 
immortal  nature,  and  his  dominion  over  other  creatures,  we  are  told 
?jy  St.  Paul,  where  he  speaks  of  the  '  new  man,  which,'  says  he, 
'after  God,'  that  is,  after  the  likeness  of  God,  'is  created  in  right- 
eousness and  true  hoUness.'  (Eph.  iv.  24.)  So  Solomon  assures 
us,  '  God  made  man  upright.'  And  Moses  says,  when  God  had 
finished  all  his  creation,  '  God  saw  every  thing  that  he  had  made, 
and  behold  it  was  very  good.'  It  was  all  according  to  his  idea  and 
his  will,  and  well-pleasing  in  his  sight.  Man,  the  last  of  his  crea- 
tures, as  well  as  all  the  rest,  ivas  very  good,  was  holy  and  happy. 

3.  "  God  originally  appointed  that  Adam  when  innocent  should 
produce  an  offspring  in  his  own  holy  image  :  and  on  the  other  hand 
that  if  he  sinned,  he  should  propagate  his  kind  in  his  own  sinful 
image.  The  former  is  allowed.  The  latter  may  be  gathered  from 
Gen.  v.  1 — 5,  '  In  the  day  that  God  created  man,  in  the  likeness  oi' 
God  made  he  him :' — « And  Adam  lived  a  hundred  and  thirty  years*^' 


1»AIIT   IV.]  ORIGINAL   SIN.  309 

after  his  loss  of  the  image  of  God,  and  '  begat  a  son  in  his  own  like- 
ness, after  his  image,'  that  is,  his  own  sinful  and  mortal  image. 

"  It  is  not  to  be  supposed,  that  Moses  in  this  brief  history  of  the 
first  generations  of  men,  should  so  particularly  repeat  the  image  and 
likeness  of  God'm  which  Adam  was  created,  unless  he  had  designed 
to  set  the  comparison  in  a  fair  light,  between  Adam's  begetting  a  son 
in  his  own  sinful  and  mortal  imager  whereas  he  himself  was  created 
in  God's  holy  and immortalimao-e.  (p.  162.) 

4.  "  God  was  pleased  to  put  the  man  whom  he  had  made  upon  a 
trial  of  his  obedience  for  a  season.  He  placed  him  in  a  garden  ot 
Eden,  (or  pleasure,)  and  gave  him  a  free  use  of  all  the  creatures : 
only  forbidding  him  to  eat  of  the  fruit  of  one  tree,  'The  tree  of  the 
knowledge  of  good  and  evil.  For  in  the  day  (said  he)  that  thou 
eatest  of  it,  thou  shalt  surely  die.'  In  which  threatening  were 
doubtless  included  all  evils  :  death  spiritual,  temporal,  and  eternal 
(p.  168.) 

5.  "  As  Adam  was  under  a  law  ;  whose  sanction  threatened  death 
upon  disobedience,  so  doubtless  God  favoured  him  with  a  covenant 
of  life,  and  a  promise  of  life  and  immortality  upon  his  obedience, 
(p.  164.) 

6.  "  Adam  broke  the  law  of  his  Maker,  lost  his  image  and  his 
favour,  forfeited  the  hope  of  imnortality,  and  exposed  himself  to  the 
wrath  of  God,  and  all  the  punishments  which  he  had  threatened  :  in 
consequence  of  which  he  was  now  painfully  afraid  of  him  in  whom 
he  before  delighted  :  and  foolishly  endeavoured  '  to  hide  himself  from 
the  presence  of  the  Lord.'  (p.  168.) 

7.  "  Adam  after  his  sin  propagated  his  kind  according  to  the  law 
of  nature  :  not  in  the  moral  image  or  likeness  of  God,  not  '  in  right- 
eousness and  true  holiness,'  but  in  his  own  sinful  likeness,  with  irre- 
gular passions,  corrupt  appetites  and  inclinations,  (p.  170,  171.)  To 
this  degeneracy  Job  manifestly  refers  in  those  expressions,  '  What  is 
man  that  he  should  be  clean,  or  the  son  of  man  that  he  should  be 
righteous  1  Who  can  bring  a  clean  thing  out  of  an  unclean  1  Not 
one.'  And  David  says  the  same  thing.  '  Behold  I  was  shapen  in 
iniquity,  and  in  sin  did  my  mother  conceive  me.' 

"  This  is  not  a  hyperbolical  aggravation  of  David's  early  sins  and 
propensity  to  evil  from  his  childhood.  But  the  text  is  strong  and 
plain  in  asserting  sin  some  way  to  belong  to  his  very  conception,  and 
to  be  conveyed  from  his  natural  parents,  which  is  a  different  idea 
from  his  actual  sins,  or  propensity  to  sin  in  his  infancy.  It  shows 
the  cause  both  of  this  propensity  and  of  his  actual  sins,  which  ope- 
rated before  he  was  born.  So  that  if  original  pravity  be  not  so  con- 
veyed and  derived  as  is  here  asserted,  the  words  are  not  an  exagge- 
ration of  what  is,  but  a  downright  fiction  of  what  is  not. 

8.  "  As  Adam  produced  his  offspring,  like  himself,  destitute  of  the 
image  of  God,  so  he  produced  them  destitute  of  the  favour  of  God, 
under  the  same  condemnation  with  himself  (p.  174,  175.)  So  Job  ; 
« Man  that  is  born  of  a  woman  is  of  few  days  and  full  of  trouble  :■ 
(ch.  xiv.  1.)  i.  e.  His  short  life  and  his  troubles  proceed  from  his 


9-10  THE    DOCTRINE    OF  [PART  IV 

very  birth  :  his  propagation  from  sinful  and  mortal  parents.  Other- 
wise God  would  not  have  appointed  his  noblest  creature  in  this  world 
to  have  been  '  born  to  trouble,'  Yet  this  is  the  case.  '  Man  is  born 
to  trouble  as  the  sparks  fly  upward.'  (Job  v.  7.)  Naturally  :  for  it 
is  owing  to  his  birth  and  his  natural  derivation  from  a  sinful  stock. 
We  are  a  miserable  race,  springing  from  a  corrupted  and  dying  root, 
prone  to  sin,  and  liable  to  sorrows  and  sufferings. 

"  In  proof  of  this  sentence  of  condemnation  and  death  coming 
upon  all  mankind  for  the  sin  of  Adam,  we  need  only  read  from  the 
12th  verse  of  the  5th  chapter  of  St.  Paul's  epistle  to  the  Romans, 
(p.  175  :)  on  which  I  observe. 

1.  "  Here  Adam  and  Christ  are  set  up  as  distinct  heads  or  repre- 
sentatives, of  their  several  families.  Adam  was  the  head  of  all  man- 
kind, who  became  sinful  and  mortal  through  his  sin  :  Christ  was  the 
head  of  all  believers,  who  obtain  pardon  and  life  through  his  right- 
eousness. To  prove  this  headship  of  Adam,  the  apostle  says, '  Until 
the  law,'  that  is,  from  the  creation  till  the  law  of  Moses,  '  sin  was  in 
the  world;  but  sin  is  not  imputed  where  there  is  no  law.'  That  is, 
where  there  is  no  law  or  constitution  of  duty  or  penalty  at  all.  Yet, 
saith  he,  '  Death  reigned  from  Adam  to  Moses  :'  yet  sin  was  imputed 
and  punished  by  death,  even  upon  all  mankind,  both  small  and  great, 
before  the  law  given  by  Moses.  The  inference  is,  Therefore  there 
was  some  law  or  constitution  during  all  the  time  from  Adam  to  Moses : 
in  virtue  of  which,  sin  was  imputed  to  mankind  ;  and  death  accord- 
ingly executed  upon  them.  Now  what  law  or  constitution  could  this 
be,  beside  that  which  was  said  to  Adam,  as  a  representative  of  his 
whole  posterity,  '  In  the  day  thou  sinnest  thou  shalt  die  V  (p.  177^ 
178.) 

2.  "  The  apostle  carries  his  argument  yet  farther,  '  Sin  was  im- 
puted,' and  '  death  reigned,'  or  was  executed  '  even  upon  those  who 
bad  not  sinned  after  the  similitude  of  Adam's  trangression  :'  who  had 
not  broken  an  express  command,  as  Adam  had  done.  This  mani- 
festly refers  to  infants  :  death  reigned  over  them  ;  death  was  executed 
upon  them.  And  this  must  be  by  some  constitution  which  in  some 
sense  imputed  sin,  to  them  who  had  not  committed  actual  sin.  For 
without  such  a  constitution  sin  would  never  have  been  imputed,  nor 
death  executed  on  children. 

"  Yet,  3.  Death  did  not  come  upon  them  as  a  mere  natural  effect 
of  their  father  Adam's  sin  and  death  :  but  as  a  proper  and  legal  pun- 
ishment of  sin.  (p.  179  :)  for  it  is  said,  his  sin  brought  condemnation 
upon  all  men.  Now  this  is  a  legal  term,  and  shows,  that  death  is  not 
only  a  natural,  but  a  penal  evil,  and  comes  upon  infants  as  guilty  and 
condemned ;  not  for  their  own  actual  sins ;  for  they  had  none  :  but  for 
the  sin  of  Adam  their  legal  head,  their  appointed  representative. 

"  In  the  18th  verse  the  expression  is  very  strong,  'By  the  offence 
of  one,  judgment  came  upon  all  men  to  condemnation.'  All  the 
children  of  Adam,  young  and  old,  are  condemned  for  his  one  offence. 
But  farther, 

4.  "  In  the  original  it  is  not,  By  the  offence  of  one :  but  By  ok 


•PAUT  1%".]  ORIGINAL   SIN-.  3H 

offence.  By  the  single  offence  of  Adam,  when  he  stood  as  the  head 
of  all  his  otlspring,  and  brought  sin  and  death  upon  them  by  his  diso- 
bedience :  as,  in  the  following  verse,  '  By  one  man's  disobedience 
many  were  made,  or  constituted  sinners  ;'  that  is,  became  liable  to 
guilt  and  death.  And  so  in  the  16th  verse,  one  single  offence  is 
represented  as  condemning  through  Adam,  and  stands  in  opposition 
to  the  many  offences  which  are  pardoned  through  Christ, 

5.  "  There  is  a  yet  farther  proof  in  this  chapter  that  Adam  con- 
veyed sin  and  death  to  his  posterity,  not  merely,  as  a  natural  parent 
but  as  a  comm.on  head  and  representative  of  all  his  offspring,  (p.  181.) 
As  Adam  and  Christ  are  here  said  to  be  the  two  springs  of  sin  and 
lighteousness,  of  death  and  life  to  mankind,  so  the  one  is  represented 
as  a  type  and  figure  of  the  other.  In  this  very  respect  Adam  was  a 
figure  or  type  of  Christ,  (ver.  14.)  And  for  this  very  reason  Christ  is 
called,  the  Second  Man,  the  last  Adam.  As  one  was  the  spring  of 
life,  so  the  other  was  the  spring  of  death,  to  all  his  seed  or  offspring. 
(1  Cor.  XV.  47—49.) 

"  Now  Christ  is  a  spring  of  life  not  only  as  he  conveys  sanctifica- 
tion  or  holiness  to  his  seed,  but  as  he  procures  for  them  justification 
and  eternal  life  by  his  personal  obedience.  And  so  Adam  is  a  spring 
of  death,  not  only  as  he  conveys  an  unholy  nature  to  his  seed,  to  all 
men,  but  as  he  brings  condemnation  to  eternal  death  upon  them,  by 
his  personal  disobedience.  And  this  is  the  chief  thing  which  the 
apostle  seerns  to  have  in  his  eye  throughout  the  latter  part  of  this 
chapter :  the  conveyance  of  condemnation  and  death  to  the  seed  of 
Adam,  of  justification  and  eternal  life  to  the  seed  of  Christ,  by  the 
means  of  what  their  respective  heads  or  representatives  had  done. 

"  But  some  object,  '  all  the  blessings  which  God  gave  at  first  to 
Adam,  consisted  in  these  three  particulars,  1.  The  blessing  of  propa- 
gation.— 2.  Dominion  over  the  brutes. — 3.  The  image  of  God. 
But  all  these  three  are  more  expressly  and  emphatically  pronounced 
to  Noah  and  his  sons  than  to  Adam  in  Paradise.'  (p.  183.) 

"  I  answer,  if  we  review  the  history  and  context,  we  shall  find  the 
blessing  of  Adam  and  that  of  Noah,  very  widely  differ  from  each 
other,  in  all  the  three  particulars  mentioned,  (p.  186.) 

"  1.  The  blessing  of  Adam  relating  to  propagation,  was  without 
those  multiplied  pains  and  sorrows,  which  after  the  first  sin,  fell  upon 
women,  in  bearing  children.  It  was  also  a  blessing  of  sustentation 
or  nourishment,  without  hard  toil  and  the  sweat  of  his  brow.  It  was 
a  blessing  without  a  curse  on  the  ground,  to  lessen  or  destroy  the 
fruitfulness  thereof  It  was  a  blessing  without  death,  without  return- 
ing to  dust :  whereas  the  blessing  of  Noah,  did  not  exclude  death,  no 
nor  the  pains  of  child-birth,  nor  the  earning  our  bread  by  the  sweat 
of  our  brow. 

"  2.  To  Adam  was  given  dominion  over  the  brutes.  To  Noah  it 
was  only  said,  '  The  fear  of  you  and  the  dread  of  you  shall  be  upon 
every  beast.'  But  notwithstanding  this  fear  and  dread,  yet  they  fre- 
quently sting  men  to  death,  or  bite  and  tear  them  in  pieces.  Whereas 


312  THJE   DOCTRINE   OF  [PAHT  IV, 

no  such  calamity  could  ever  have  befallen  innocent  Adam  or  his  in- 
nocent offspring,  (p.  187.) 

"  3.  The  image  of  God  in  which  Adam  was  created,  consisted  emi- 
nently in  righteousness  and  true  holiness.  But  that  part  of  the  image 
of  God  which  remained  after  the  fall,  and  remains  in  all  men  to  this 
day,  is  the  natural  image  of  God,  namely  the  spiritual  nature  and  im- 
mortality of  the  soul :  not  excluding  the  political  image  of  God,  or  a 
degree  of  dominion  over  the  creatures  still  remaining.  But  the  moral 
image  of  God  is  lost  and  defaced  :  or  else  it  could  not  be  said  to  be 
renewed,  (p.  188.)  It  is  then  evident,  that  the  blessing  given  to 
Adam  in  innocency,  and  that  given  to  Noah  after  the  Flood,  differ  so 
widely,  that  the  latter  was  consistent  with  the  condemnation  or  curse 
for  sin,  and  the  former  was  not.  Consequently  mankind  does  not 
now  stand  in  the  same  favour  of  God,  as  Adam  did  while  he  was  in- 
nocent, (p.  189.) 

"  Thus  it  appears,  that  the  Holy  Scripture  both  in  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments,  give  us  a  plain  and  full  account,  of  the  convey- 
ance of  sin,  misery,  and  death,  from  the  first  man  to  all  his  offspring. 


THE  FIRST  ESSAY. 

Do  the  present  Miseries  of  Man  alone  prove  his  Apostacy  from  God? 

SECTION  I. 

Jl  general  Survey  of  the  Follies  and  Miseries  of  Mmikind. 

"Upon  a  just  view  of  human  nature,  (p.  359.)  from  its  entrance 
into  life,  till  it  retires  behind  the  curtain  of  death,  one  would  be  ready 
to  say  concerning  man,  *'  Is  this  the  creature  that  is  so  superior  to 
the  rest  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  globe,  as  to  require  the  peculiar 
care  of  the  Creator  in  forming  himl  (p.  360.)  Does  he  deserve 
such  an  illustrious  description,  as  even  the  Heathen  poet  has  given 
us  of  him]" 

Sanctius  hie  animal,  mejitisqne  capacius  Mtm 
Deerat  adhuc,  et  quod  domiaari  in  cmtera  posstt. 
J^utus  homo  est ;  sive  hunc  divino  seinine  crtlum 
IIU  opi/ex reru:n  rmmdl  melioris  orig'o 
Finxit  in  Effigiem  moderanlum  cuncta  Deonim. 
Pronaque  cum  spectent  animalia  ccetera  lerram 
Os  homini  sublime  dedit,  cmlumque  tueri 
Jussit,  et  erectos  ad  sidera  loUere  vultus. 

A  creature  of  a  more  exalted  kind, 
Was  wanting  yet,  and  then  was  men  design'd  : 
Conscious  of  thought,  of  more  capacious  breast, 
For  empire  form'd,  and  fit  to  rule  the  rest. 
Whether  with  particles  of  heavenly  fire, 
The  God  of   Nature  did  his  soul  inspire. 
And  moulding  up  a  mass  in  shape  like  our's, 
Form'd  a  bright  image  of  th'  all-ruling  powers. 
And  while  the  mute  creation  downward  bend 
Their  sight,  and  to  their  earthly  mother  tend. 
Man  looks  aloft,  and  with  erected  eyes, 
Beholds  his  own  hereditary  skies. 


^ART   IV.]  ORICrlNAL   SIN.  313 

"  Now  if  man  was  formed  in  the  image  of  God,  certainly  he  was 
a  holy  and  a  happy  being.  But  what  is  there  like  holiness  or  happi- 
ness now  found,  running  through  this  rank  of  creatures'?  Are  there 
any  of  the  brutal  kind  that  do  not  more  regularly  answer  the  design  of 
their  creation  ?  Are  there  any  brutes  that  we  ever  find  acting  so 
much  below  their  original  character,  on  the  land,  in  the  water,  or 
the  air,  as  mankind  does  all  over  the  earth  ?  Or  are  there  any  tribes 
among  them,  through  which  pain,  vexation,  and  misery,  are  so  plen- 
tifully distributed  as  they  are  among  the  children  of  men  1  (p.  361.) 

"Were  this  globe  of  earth  to  be  surveyed  from  one  end  to  the  other, 
by  some  spirit  of  a  superior  order,  it  would  be  found  such  a  theatre 
of  folly  and  madness,  such  a  maze  of  mingled  vice  and  misery,  as 
would  move  the  compassion  of  his  refined  nature,  to  a  painful  de- 
gree, were  it  not  tempered  by  a  clear  sight  of  that  wise  and  just  pro- 
vidence, which  strongly  and  sweetly  works  in  the  midst  of  all ;  and 
will  in  the  end  bring  good  out  of  all  evil,  and  justify  the  ways  of  God 
with  man.  (p.  362.) 


SECT.  II. 

A  particular  View  of  the  Miseries  of  Man. 

**  But  to  waive  for  the  present  the  sins  and  follies  of  mankind,  may 
we  not  infer  from  his  miseries  alone,  that  we  are  degenerate  beings 
bearing  the  most  evident  marks  of  the  displeasure  of  our  Maker  1 
(p.  363.) 

"  View  the  histories  of  mankind,  and  what  is  almost  all  history, 
but  a  description  of  the  wretchedness  of  men,  under  the  mischiefs 
they  bring  upon  themselves,  and  the  judgments  of  the  Great  God  ! 
The  scenes  of  happiness  and  peace  are  very  thin  set  among  all  the 
nations  :  and  tliey  are  rather  a  transient  glimpse,  here  and  there,  than 
any  thing  solid  and  durable,  (p.  364.)  But  if  we  look  over  the  uni- 
verse, what  public  desolations  by  plague  and  famine,  by  storms  and 
earthquakes,  by  wars  and  pestilence  !  What  secret  mischiefs  reign 
among  men,  which  pierce  and  torture  the  soul !  What  smarting 
wounds  and  bruises,  what  pains  and  diseases  attack  and  torment  the 
animal  frame  ! 

"  Where  is  the  family  of  seven  or  eight  persons  wherein  there  is 
not  one  or  more  afflicted  with  some  troublesome  malady,  or  tiresome 
inconvenience  1  These  indeed  are  often  concealed  by  the  persons 
who  suifer  them,  and  by  the  families  where  they  dwell.  But  were 
they  all  brought  together,  what  hospitals  or  infirmaries  would  be  able 
to  contain  them  1  (p.  365.) 

"  What  toils  and  hardships,  what  inward  anxieties  and  sorrows, 
tiisappointments  and  calamities  are  diffused  through  every  age  and 
country  1  Do  not  the  rich  feel  them  as  well  as  the  poor  ?  Are  they 
not  all  teased  with  their  own  appetites,  which  are  never  satisfied  ? 

Vol  9.— D  d 


•314  THE   DOCTRINE  OF  [PART  IV, 

And  their  impetuous  passions  give  them  no  rest.  What  keen  an= 
guish  of  mind  arises  from  pride,  and  envy,  and  resentment  1  What 
tortures  does  ambition,  or  disappointed  love,  or  wild  jealousy  infuse 
into  their  bosoms  1  Meanwhile  the  poor,  together  with  inward  vexa- 
tions and  corroding  maladies  of  the  mind,  sustain  likewise  endless 
drudgeries  in  procuring  their  necessary  subsistence.  And  how  many 
of  them  cannot  after  all,  procure  even  food  to  eat  and  raiment  to  put 
on?  (p.  366.) 

"  Survey  man  through  every  stage.  See  first  what  a  figure  he 
makes,  at  his  entrance  into  life !  '  This  animal,'  says  Pliny,  '  who  is 
to  govern  the  rest  of  the  creatures,  how  he  lies  bound  hand  and  foot 
all  in  tears,  and  begins  his  life  in  misery  and  punishment.'  If  we 
trace  the  education  of  the  human  race,  from  the  cradle  to  mature  age, 
especially  among  the  poor,  who  are  the  bulk  of  all  nations,  the 
wretchedness  of  mankind  will  farther  appear.  How  are  ihey  every 
where  dragged  up  in  their  tender  age,  through  a  train  of  nonsense, 
madness,  and  miseries'?  (p.  367.)  What  millions  of  uneasy  sensa- 
tions do  they  endure  in  infancy  and  childhood  by  reason  of  those 
pressing  necessities,  which  for  some  years  they  can  tell  only  in  cries 
and  groans,  and  which  either  their  parents  are  so  poor  they  cannot 
relieve,  or  so  savage  and  brutish  that  they  willnotl  How  wretchedly 
are  these  young  generations  hurried  on  through  the  folly  and  weak- 
ness of  childhood,  till  new  calamities  arise  from  their  own  ungovern- 
cd  appetites  and  impetuous  passions'?  As  youth  advances,  the  ferments 
of  the  blood  rise  higher,  and  the  appetites  and  passions  grow  much 
.stronger,  and  give  more  abundant  vexation  to  the  race  of  mankind, 
than  they  do  to  any  of  the  brutal  creation.  And  whereas  the  all- 
wise  God,  for  kind  reasons,  has  limited  the  gratification  of  these  ap- 
petites by  rules  of  virtue  ;  perhaps  these  very  rules  through  the  cor- 
I'uption  of  our  nature  irritate  mankind  to  greater  excesses,  (p.  368.) 

"  Would  the  affairs  of  human  life  in  infancy,  childhood,  and 
youth,  have  ever  been  in  such  a  sore  and  painful  situation,  if  man 
had  been  such  a  being  as  God  at  first  made  him,  and  had  continued 
in  the  favour  of  his  Maker  1  Could  divine  wisdom  and  goodness 
admit  of  these  scenes,  Avere  there  not  a  degeneracy  through  the 
Avhole  race,  which  by  the  just  permission  of  God,  exerts  itself  some 
way  or  other  in  every  stage  of  life  ?  (p.  370.) 

"Follow  mankind  to  the  age  of  public  appearance  upon  the 
stage  of  the  world,  andAvhat  shall  we  find  there  but  infinite  cares, 
labours,  and  toil,  attended  with  fond  hopes  almost  always  frustrated 
with  endless  crosses  and  disappointments,  through  ten  thousand  ac- 
cidents that  are  every  moment  flying  across  this  mortal  stage  1  As 
tor  the  poor,  how  does  the  sultry  toil  exhaust  their  lives  in  summer, 
and  what  starving  wretchedness  do  they  feel  in  winter  1  How  is  a 
miserable  life  sustained  among  all  the  pains  and  fatigues  of  nature 
with  the  oppression,  cruelty,  and  scorn  of  the  rich  ?  (p.  371.) 

"  Let  us  follow  on  the  track  to  the  close  of  life.  What  a  scene  is 
presented  us  in  old  age  1  How  innumerable  and  how  inexpressible 
are  the  disasters  and  sorrows,  the  pains  and  aches,  the  groans  anti 


PART  IV.]  ORIGINAL  SIX.  316 

wretchedness,  that  meet  man  on  the  borders  of  the  grave,  before 
they  pUnige  him  into  it  1 

"And  indeed  is  there  any  person  on  earth,  high  or  low,  without 
such  distresses  and  difficulties,  such  crossing  accidents  and  perplexing 
cares,  such  painful  infirmities  in  some  or  other  part  of  life,  as  must 
pronounce  mankind  upon  the  whole  a  miserable  being  ?  Whatever 
scenes  of  happiness  seem  to  attend  him,  in  any  shining  hour,  a  dark 
cloud  soon  casts  a  gloom  over  them,  and  the  pleasing  vision  vanishes 
as  a  dream ! 

"  And  what  are  the  boasted  pleasures  which  some  have  supposed 
to  balance  the  sorrows  of  life  ]  Are  not  most  of  them  owing  in  a 
good  degree,  to  some  previous  uneasiness  1  It  is  the  pain  of  hunger 
which  makes  food  so  relishing;  the  pain  of  weariness  that  renders 
sleep  so  refreshing.  And  as  for  the  blessings  of  love  and  friendship, 
among  neighbours  and  kindred,  do  they  not  often  produce  as  much 
vexation  as  satisfaction  ?  Not  indeed  of  themselves  ;  but  by  reason 
of  the  endless  humours  and  foUies,  errors  and  passions  of  mankind, 
(p.  373.) 

"  Again.  Do  not  the  very  pleasures  of  the  body  prove  the  ruin 
of  ten  thousand  souls  1  They  may  be  used  with  innocence  and  wis- 
dom ;  but  the  unruly  appetites  and  passions  of  men,  continually  turn 
into  a  curse,  what  God  originally  designed  for  a  blessing,  (p.  374.) 

"  Think  again  how  short  and  transient  are  the  pleasures  of  life  in 
comparison  of  the  pains  of  it !  How  vanishing  the  sweetest 
sensations  of  delight !  But  in  many  persons  and  families,  how  many 
are  the  days,  the  months,  the  years,  of  fatigue,  oi'  pain,  or  bitter  sor- 
row ]  What  pleasure  of  the  animal  frame  is  either  as  lasting,  or  as 
intense  as  the  pain  of  the  gout  or  stone  ]  How  small  is  the  propor- 
tion of  sensible  pleasure,  to  that  of  pain  or  trouble,  Or  uneasiness  ? 
And  how  far  is  it  over-balanced  by  the  maladies  or  miseries,  the 
fears  or  sorrows  of  the  greatest  part  of  mankind  1 

"  As  for  intellectual  pleasures,  how  few  are  there  in  the  world, 
who  have  any  capacity  for  them  ?  And  among  those  few,  how  many 
differences  and  contentions,  how  many  crossing  objections,  bewil- 
dered inquiries,  and  unhappy  mistakes  are  mingled  with  the  enjoy- 
ment ?  So  that  '  he  who  increaseth  knowledge  increaseth  sorrow,' 
saith  the  wisest  of  men,  and  upon  the  whole  computation,  he  writes 
on  this  also,  '  Vanity  and  vexation  of  spirit.' 

"  To  talk  then  of  real  happiness  to  be  enjoyed  in  this  life  (ab- 
stracted from  the  foretaste  of  another)  is  contrary  to  all  the  common 
sense  and  experience  of  every  thinking  man.  Without  this  « taste 
of  the  powers  of  the  world  to  come,'  I  know  not  Avhat  wise  man 
would  willingly  come  into  these  scenes  of  mortality,  or  go  through 
them  with  any  patience,  (p.  376,  37.7.) 

"  What,  10  be  trained  ulp  from  infancy  under  so  many  unavoidable 
follies,  prejudices,  and  wretched  delusions  through  the  power  of 
flesh  and  sense  ?  To  be  sunk  into  such  gross  ignorance  both  of  our 
souls,  our  better  selves,  and  of  the  glorious  Being  that  made  us  1  To 
lie  under  such  heavy  shades  of  darkness,  such  a  world  of  mistakes 


316  THE  DOCTRINE  *F  [PART  IV. 

and  errors,  as  are  mingled  with  our  little  faint  glimpses,  and  low  no 
tices  of  God  our  Creator?    What,  to  be  so  far  distant  from  God,  and 
to  endure  such  a  long  estrangement  from  the  wisest  and  best  oj 
Beings,  in  this  foolish  and  fleshly  state,  with  so  few  and  slender  com- 
munications with  or  from  him  1 

"  What,  to  feel  so  many  powerful  and  disquieting  appetites,  so 
many  restless  and  unruly  passions,  which  want  the  perpetual  guard 
of  a  jealous  eye,  and  a  strong  restraint  over  them  1  Otherwise  they 
will  be  ever  breaking  out  into  some  new  mischief. 

"  What,  to  be  ever  surrounded  with  such  delights  of  sense,  as  are 
constant  temptations  to  folly  and  sin?  To  have  scarce  any  joys, 
but  what  we  are  liable  to  pay  dear  for,  by  an  excessive  or  irregular 
indulgence  1  Gan  this  be  a  desirable  state  1  For  any  wise  being 
who  knows  what  happiness  is,  to  be  united  to  such  a  disorderly 
machine  of  flesh  and  blood,  with  all  its  uneasy  and  unruly  ferments  1 
(p.  378.) 

"  Add  to  this  another  train  of  inbred  miseries  which  attend  this 
animal  frame.  What  wise  spirit  would  willingly  put  on  such  flesh 
and  blood  as  ours,  with  all  the  springs  of  sickness  and  pain,  anguish 
and  disease  in  it  1  What,  to  be  liable  to  the  racking  disquietudes  of 
gout  and  stone,  and  a  thousand  other  distempers  ?  To  have  nature 
worn  out  by  slow  and  long  aches  and  infirmities,  and  lie  lingering 
many  years  on  the  borders  of  death,  before  we  can  find  a  grave  ? 

"  Solomon  seems  to  be  much  of  this  mind,  when  after  a  survey  of 
the  whole  scheme  of  human  life,  in  its  variety  of  scenes,  (without 
the  views  of  hereafter,)  he  declares,  '  I  praised  the  dead  who  were 
already  dead,  more  than  the  living  who  were  yet  alive.'  And  indeed 
it  appears,  that  the  miseries  of  life  are  so  numerous  as  to  overbalance 
all  its  real  comforts,  and  sufficiently  to  show,  that  mankind  now  lie 
under  evident  marks  of  their  Makers  displeasure  as  being  dege- 
nerated  from  that  state  of  innocence,  wherein  they  were  at  fir^^t 
created,  (p.  380.) 


SECT.  III.      ' 

Objections  answered. 

"  But  it  is  objected  *  If  human  life  in  general  is  miserable,  how  i.^ 
it,  that  all  men  are  so  unwilling  to  die  V  (p.  381.  383.) 

"  I  answer,  1.  Because  they  fear  to  meet  with  more  misery  in  an- 
other life  than  they  feel  in  this.     See  our  Poet : 

"  The  weariest  and  most  loathed  worldly  life. 
That  pain,  age,  penury,  and  imprisonment 
Can  lay  on  nature,  'tis  a  paradise 
To  what  we  fear  of  death." 


I 


PART  IV,]  ORIGINAL  SIN.  317 

And  in  another  place, 

"  If  by  the  sleep  of  death  we  could  but  end 
The  heart-ache  and  the  thousand  natural  shocks 
That  flesh  is  heir  to,  'twere  a  consummation 
Devoutly  to  be  wished.     0  who  would  bear 
The  oppressor's  wrongs,  the  poor  man's  contumely, 
The  insolence  of  oflSce,  and  the  spurns 
That  patient  merit  of  th'  unworthy  takes, 
With  all  the  long  calamities  of  life  ; 
When  he  himself  might  his  quietus  make 
'  With  a  bare  bodkin  ?    Who  would  bear  such  burdens, 

And  groan  and  sweat  under  a  weary  life, 
But  that  the  dread  of  something  after  death, 
That  undiscover'd  country,  from  whose  bourne 
No  traveller  returns,  puzzles  the  will, 
And  makes  us  rather  bear  those  ills  we  have. 
Than  fly  to  others  which  are  all  unknown." 

*•'  If  you  say, '  But  the  Heathens  knew  nothmg  of  a  future  life  : 
and  yet  they  too,  in  all  their  generations  have  been  unwilling  to  die. 
Nor  would  they  put  an  end  to  their  own  life  were  it  ever  so  misera- 
ble.' (p.  384.)  I  answer,  Most  of  the  ancients  (as  well  as  the 
modern)  Heathens,  had  some  notions  of  an  after-state,  and  some  fears 
of  punishment  in  another  life,  for  sins  committed  in  this.  And  in 
the  politer  nations  they  generally  supposed  self-murderers  in  par- 
ticular would  be  punished  after  death. 

Proxima  deinde  tenent  masti  loca,  qui  sibi  lethum 
Insontes  peperSre  manu,  lucemqiie  ptrosi 
Project  re  animas.     Quarrj  vellent  aether e  in  aUo 
JVu»ic  et  pauperiem  et  duros  perferre  labores  ! 
Fata  obstant :  tristique  palus  inamabilis  unda 
Mligat,  et  novies  Styx  inter/usa  coercet. 

The  next  in  place  and  punishment  are  they 
Who  prodigally  threw  their  lives  aivay- 
Fools,  who  repining  at  their  wretched  state, 
And  loathing  anxious  life  have  hurried  on  their  fa(c. 
With  late  repentance  now  they  would  retrieve 
The  bodies  they  forsook,  and  wish  to  live  : 
All  pain  and  poverty  desire  to  bear. 
To  view  the  light  of  heav'n,  and  breathe  the  vital  air. 
But  fate  forbids  :  the  Stygian  floods  oppose. 
And  with  nine  circling  streams  the  captive  souls  enclose, 

'•  I  answer,  2.  Suppose  this  love  of  Ufe  and  aversion  to  death  are 
ibund,  even  where  there  is  no  regard  to  a  future  state,  this  will  not 
prove  that  mankind  is  happy ;  but  only  that  the  God  of  nature  hatli 
wrouglit  this  principle  into  the  souls  of  all  men,  in  order  to  preserve 
tl>e  work  of  his  own  hands.  So  that  reluctance  against  dying  is  owing 
to  the  natural  principles  of  self-preservation,  without  any  formed 
and  sedate  judgment,  whether  it  is  best  to  continue  in  this  life  <jv 
not,  or  whether  life  has  more  happiness  or  misery,   (p.  386.) 

"  It  may  be  objected,  secondly.  If  brutes  suffer  nearly  the  same 
miseries  with  mankind,  and  yet  have  not  sinned,  how  can  these 
miseries  prove  that  man  i&an  apostate  being  1  (p.  389.) 

"  I  answer,  it  is  by  reason  of  man's  apostacy,  that  even  brute 
animals  suffer.  '  The  whole  creation  groaneth  together'  on  his  ac- 
count, ♦  and  travaileth  together  in  pain  to  this  day.'  For  the  brute 
'  creation  was  made  subject  to  vanity,'  to  abuse,  paJH,  cTjrrupfiOJ}, 

Dd  3 


318  THE    DOCTRINE    OF  [PAET  IV. 

death,  not « willingly,'  not  by  any  act  of  its  own,  *  but  by  reason  ol 
him  that  subjected  it :'  of  God  who  in  consequence  of  Adam's  sin, 
whom  he  had  appointed  Lord  of  the  whole  lower  world, /or  his  sake 
pronounced  this  curse  (not  only  on  the  ground,  but)  on  all  which 
was  before  under  his  dominion. 

"  The  misery,  therefore,  of  the  brute  creation,  is  so  far  from  be- 
ing an  objection  to  the  apostacy  of  man,  that  it  is  a  visible  standing 
demonstration  thereof.     If  beasts  suffer,  then  man  is  fallen. 


SECT.  IK 

The  apostacy  of  Man  proved  by  Scripture  ai%d  Reason. 

"  But  whether  or  not  the  miseries  of  mankind  alone  will  prove 
their  apostacy  from  God,  it  is  certain  these  together  with  the  sin? 
of  men  are  an  abundant  proof,  that  we  are  fallen  creatures.  And 
this  I  shall  now  endeavour  to  show,  both  from  the  express  testimony 
of  Scripture,  from  the  necessity  of  renewing  grace,  and  from  a  sur- 
vey of  the  Heathen  world.'  (p.  409,  410.) 

"First,  The  Scripture  testifies,  that  an  universal  degeneracy  and 
corruption,  is  come  upon  all  the  sons  and  daughters  of  Adam, 
(p.  410.)  '  Every  imagination  of  the  thoughts  of  the  heart  of  man 
is  only  evil  continually,'  (Gen.  vi.  5:)  yea  'evil  from  his  youth.' 
(Ch.  viii.  21.)  'The  Lord  looked  down  from  heaven  upon  the 
children  of  men,  to  see  if  there  were  any  that  did  understand  and 
seek  God.  They  are  gone  out  of  the  way  :  there  is  none  that  doth 
good,  no  not  one.'  (Psm.  xiv.  2.)  'There  is  not  a  just  man  upon 
earth,  who  doth  good  and  sinneth  not.'  (Eccl.  vii.  20.)  '  All  wo 
like  sheep  have  gone  astray,  we  have  turned  every  one  to  his  own 
way:'  (Isa.  liii.  6.)  different  wanderings,  but  all  wanderers.  '  There 
is  none  righteous,  no  not  one  :  there  is  none  that  doth  good,  no  not 
one.  Every  mouth  is  stopped,  and  all  the  world  become  guilty  be- 
fore God.  All  are  fallen  short  of  the  glory  of  God,  because  all 
have  sinned.'  (Rom.  iii,  10.  12.  19.  23.)  'If  one  died  for  all,  then 
were  all  dead  ;'  that  is,  spiritually  dead,  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins.' 
(2  Cor.  V.  14.) 

"  Now  can  we  suppose,  that  all  God's  creatures  would  universally 
break  his  law,  run  into  sin  and  death,  defile  and  destroy  themselves, 
and  that  without  any  one  exception,  if  it  had  not  arisen  from  some 
root  of  bitterness,  some  original  iniquity  which  was  diffused  througlt- 
ihem  all,  from  their  very  entrance  into  the  world  1  It  is  utterly  in- 
credible, that  every  single  person,  among  the  millions  of  mankind 
should  be  born  pure  and  innocent,  and  yet  should  all,  by  free  and 
voluntary  choice,  every  one  for  himself,  for  near  six  thousand  years 
together,  rebel  against  him  that  made  them,  if  there  were  not  some 
original  contagion  spread  through  them  all  at  their  enti'ance  into 
tife! 


PART  IV.]  ORIGINAL  Sllf.  Sf9 

"Secondly,  The  same  thing  appears  from  the  scriptural  doctrine 
of  our  recovery  by  divine  grace.  Let  us  consider  in  what  manner 
the  Scripture  represents  that  great  change  which  must  be  wrought 
in  our  souls,  in  order  to  our  obtaining  the  favour  and  image  of  God, 
and  future  happiness,  '  Except  a  man  be  born  again,  he  cannot  see 
the  kingdom  of  God.'  (John  iii.  3.  6.  8.)  In  other  scripture  it  is  re- 
presented, that  they  '  must  be  born  of  the  Spirit ;'  they  must  be 
'  born  of  God.'  They  must  be, '  created  anew  in  Christ  Jesus  unto 
good  works,'  (Eph.  ii.  10.)  They  must  'be  quickened,'  or  raised 
again  from  their  *  death  in  trespasses  and  sins.'  (ver.  5. )  They  must 
be,  <  renewed  in  their  spirit,'  or  *  created  after  the  image  of  God  in 
righteousness  and  true  holiness.'  They  must  be  *  reconciled  to  God 
by  Jesus  Christ  :'  they  must  be  ^washed  from  their  sins  in  his  blood." 
'  Since  all  have  sinned  and  come  short  of  the  glory  of  God,'  there- 
fore if  ever  they  are  saved,  they  must  be  'justified  freely  by  his  grace, 
through  the  redemption  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus.'  Now  can  any  one 
suppose  God  to  have  made  so  many  millions  of  creatures,  as  have 
come  into  the  world  from  Adam  till  now,  which  have  all  entered  the 
world,  innocent  and  holy,  and  yet  not  one  of  them  should  retain  his 
image  in  holiness,  or  be  fit  for  his  favour,  without  being  born  agam^ 
created  anew,  raised  from  the  dead,  redeemed,  not  with  corruptible 
things,  but  '  with  the  blood  of  his  own  Son  ?'  Do  not  all  these  re- 
presentations prove,  that  every  man  is  born  with  some  original  con-* 
tagion,  and  under  some  criminal  imputation  in  the  sight  of  God  1 
Else  would  not  one  among  all  these  millions  be  fit  to  be  made  a  par- 
taker of  his  favour,  without  such  amazing  purifications  as  require 
the  blood  of  the  Son  of  God,  and  the  almighty  operations  of  hi& 
Spirit  ?  Do  not  all  these  things  show,  that  mankind  in  their  present 
generations,  are  not  such  creatures  as  God  at  first  made  them  1  (p. 
414.) 

"  The  same  great  truth  we  may  learn,  thirdly,  from  even  a  slight 
survey  of  the  Heathen  nations.  A  few  days  ago  I  was  viewing,  in 
the  map  of  the  world,  the  vast  Asiatic  empires  of  Tartary  and  China, 
and  a  great  part  of  the  kingdom  of  the  Mogul,  with  the  multitude 
of  islands  in  the  East- Indies.  I  went  on  to  survey  all  the  southern 
part  of  Africa,  with  the  savage  nations  of  America.  I  observed 
the  thousands,  or  rather  millions  who  dwell  on  this  globe,  and  walk, 
and  trifle,  and  live  and  die  there,  under  the  heaviest  cloud  of  igno- 
rance and  darkness,  not  knowing  God,  nor  the  way  to  his  favour : 
who  are  drenched  in  gross  impieties  and  superstitions,  who  are  con- 
tinually guilty  of  national  immoralities,  and  practise  idolatry,  malice 
and  lewdness,  fraud  and  falsehood,  with  scarce  any  regret  or  restraint, 
(p,  415.) 

"  Then  sighing  within  myself  I  said,  It  is  not  many  years  since 
these  were  all  infants ;  and  they  were  brought  up  by  parents  who 
knew  not  God,  nor  the  path  that  leads  to  life  and  happiness.  Are 
not  these  unhappy  children  bom  under  difficulties  almost  insurmount- 
able 1  Are  they  not  laid  under  almost  an  impossibility,  of  breaking: 
their  way  of  themselves,  through  so  much  thick  darkness,  to  the 


3£0  THE   DOexniNE  OF  [part  IV. 

knowledge,  the  fear,  and  the  love  of  him  that  made  them  ?  Dreadful 
truth  indeed !  Yet,  so  far  as  I  can  see,  certain  and  incontestible. 
Such,  I  fear,  is  :he  case  of  those  of  the  human  race  who  cover  at 
present  the  far  greatest  part  of  the  globe,  (p.  416.) 

"  Then  I  ran  back  in  my  thoughts  four  or  five  thousand  years,  and 
said  within  myself,  what  multitudes  in  every  age  of  the  world,  have 
been  born  in  these  deplorable  circumstances  1  They  are  inured  from 
their  birth  to  barbai  ous  customs  and  impious  practices  ;  they  have  an 
image  of  the  life  of  brutes  axid  devils  wrought  in  them  by  their  early 
education  :  they  have  iiad  the  seeds  of  wretched  wickedness,  sown, 
planted,  and  cultivated  in  them,  by  the  savage  instructions  of  those 
that  went  before  them.  And  their  own  imitation  of  such  horrible 
examples  has  confirmed  the  mischief,  long  before  they  knew  or 
heard  of  the  true  God  :  if  they  have  heard  of  him  to  this  day.  Scarce 
any  of  them  have  admitted  one  thoughtful  inquiry,  whether  they  fol- 
low the  rules  of  reason^  or  whether  they  are  in  the  way  of  happiness 
and  peace,  any  more  than  their  parents  before  them.  As  they  are 
born  in  this  gross  darkness,  so  they  grow  up  in  the  vile  idolatries, 
and  all  the  shameful  abominations  of  their  country,  and  go  on  to 
death  in  the  same  course.  Nor  have  they  light  enough,  either  from 
without  or  within  to  make  them  ask  seriously,  '  Is  there  not  a  lie  in 
my  right  hand  1  Am  I  not  in  the  way  of  destruction  ?'  (p.  417.) 

"  St.  Peter  says,  indeed.  That  '  in  every  nation  he  that  feareth 
God  and  worketh  righteousness  is  accepted  of  him.'  But  if  there 
were  very  few  (among  the  Jews)  who  feared  God,  very  few  in  those 
learned  nations  of  the  Gentiles,  how  much  fewer,  may  we  suppose, 
are  in  those  barbarous  countries,  which  have  no  knowledge,  either 
divine  or  human?  (p.  419.) 

"  But  would  this  have  been  the  case  of  those  unhappy  nations, 
both  of  the  parents  and  their  children,  in  a  hundred  long  successions, 
liad  they  been  such  a  race  of  creatures,  as  they  came  out  of  the  hand 
of  the  Creator  1  if  those  children  had  been  guiltless  in  the  eye  of 
God  could  this  have  been  their  portion  1  In  short,  can  we  suppose, 
the  wise,  and  righteous,  and  merciful  God  would  have  established  and 
continued  such  a  constitution  for  the  propagation  of  mankind,  which 
should  naturally  place  so  many  millions  of  them  so  early  in  such  dis- 
mal circumstances  ;  if  there  had  not  been  some  dreadful  and  univer« 
Sal  degeneracy  spread  over  them  and  their  fathers,  by  some  original 
crime,  which  met  and  seized  them  at  the  very  entrance  into  life  1 
fp.  420.) 

m 

THE  SECOND  ESSAY. 

yi  plain  Explication  of  the  Doctrine  of  '  Imputed  Si7i  and  Imputed 
Righteousness,  {p.  427.) 

"  This  Doctrine  has  been  attended  with  many  noisy  controversies 
in  the  Christian  world.     Let  us  try  whether  it  may  not  be  set  in  so 


PART  IV.j  ORIGINAL   SIN.  5t\ 

fair  and  easy  a  light,  as  to  reconcile  the  sentiments  of  the  contending 
parties. 

"  When  a  man  has  broken  the  law  of  his  country,  and  is  punished 
for  so  doing,  it  is  plain  that  sin  is  imputed  to  him  :  his  wickedness  is 
upon  him ;  he  bears  his  iniquity :  that  is,  he  is  reputed  or  accounted 
guilty  :  he  is  condemned  and  dealt  with  as  an  offender,  (p.  428.) 

"  On  the  other  hand  if  an  innocent  man,  who  is  falsely  accused  is 
acquitted  by  the  court,  sin  is  not  imputed  to  him,  but  righteousness  is 
imputed  to  him  ;  or  to  use  another  phrase,  his  righteousness  is  upon  him. 

"Or,  if  a  reward  be  given  a  man  for  any  righteous  action,  this 
righteous  act  is  imputed  to  him. 

"  Farther,  If  a  man  has  committed  a  crime,  but  the  prince  pardons 
him,  then  he  is  justified  from  it ;  and  his  fault  is  not  imputed  to  him. 
(p.  439.) 

*'  But  if  a  man,  having  committed  treason,  his  estate  is  taken  from 
him  and  his  children,  then  they  bear  the  iniquity  of  their  father,  and 
his  sin  is  imputed  to  them  also. 

"  If  a  man  lose  his  life  and  estate  for  murder,  and  his  children 
thereby  become  vagabonds,  then  the  blood  of  the  person  murdered 
is  said  to  be  upon  the  murderer  and  upon  his  children  also.  So  the 
Jews  :  His  blood  be  on  us  and  on  our  children ;  let  us  and  our  children 
be  punished  for  it. 

"  Or,  if  a  criminal  had  incurred  the  penalty  of  imprisonment,  and 
the  state  were  to  permit  a  friend  of  his  to  become  his  surety,  and  to 
be  confined  in  his  room,  then  his  crime  is  said  to  be  imputed  to  his 
surety,  or  to  be  laid  upon  him :  he  bears  the  iniquity  of  his  friend,  by 
suffering  for  him.  Meantime  the  crime  for  which  the  surety  now 
suffers,  is  not  imputed  to  the  real  offender,   (p.  430.) 

"  And  should  we  suppose  the  prince,  to  permit  this  surety  to  exert 
himself  in  some  eminent  service,  to  which  a  reward  is  promised,  and 
all  this  in  order  to  entitle  the  criminal  to  the  promised  reward,  then 
this  eminent  service  may  be  said  to  be  imputed  to  the  criminal,  that  is, 
he  is  rewarded  on  the  account  of  it.  So  in  this  case,  both  what  his 
friend  has  done  and  suffered,  is  imputed  to  him. 

"If  a  man  do  some  eminent  service  to  his  prince,  and  he  with  his 
posterity  are  dignified  on  account  of  it ;  then  the  service  performed 
by  the  father  is  said  to  be  imputed  to  the  children  also.  (p.  431.) 

"  Now  if  among  the  histories  of  nations  we  find  any  thing  of  this 
kind,  do  we  not  easily  understand  what  the  writers  say  1  Why  then 
do  we  judge  these  phrases  when  they  are  found  in  the  inspired  wri- 
ters, to  be  so  hard  to  be  understood  1 

"  But  it  may  be  asked,  how  can  the  acts  of  the  parent's  treason,  be 
imputed  to  his  little  child  1  Since  those  acts  were  quite  out  of  the 
reach  of  an  infant,  nor  was  it  possible  for  him  to  commit  them  ? 
(p.  432.)  Or  how  can  the  eminent  service  performed  by  a  father,  be 
imputed  to  his  child,  who  is  but  an  infant  1 

"  I  answer,  1.  Those  acts  of  treason  or  acts  of  service,  are  by  a 
common  figure  said  to  be  imputed  to  the  children,  when  they  suffer  or 
enjoy  the  consequences  of  their  father's  treason  or  eminent  service :. 


^2^  THE   DOCTRINE   OF  [PART  IV, 

though  the  particular  actions  of  treason  or  service,  could  not  be  prac-= 
tised  by  the  children.  This  would  easily  be  understood  should  it 
occur  in  human  history.  And  why  not,  when  it  occurs  in  the  sacred 
writings?  (p.  433.) 

"  I  answer,  2.  Sin  is  taken  either  for  an  act  of  disobedience  to  a 
law,  or  for  the  legal  result  of  such  an  act ;  that  is,  the  guilt  or  liable- 
ness  to  punishment.  Now  when  we  say,  the  sin  of  a  traitor  is  imputed 
to  his  children,  we  do  not  mean,  that  the  act  of  the  father  is  charged 
upon  the  child  :  but  that  the  guilt  or  liableness  to  punishment  is  so 
transferred  to  him  that  he  suffers  banishment  or  poverty  on  account 
of  it.  ^ 

"  In  like  manner  righteousness  is  either,  particular  acts  of  obe- 
dience to  a  law,  or  the  legal  result  of  those  actions,  that  is,  a  right  /o 
the  reward  annexed  to  them. 

"  And  so  when  we  say,  The  righteousness  of  him  that  has  perform- 
ed some  eminent  act  of  obedience,  is  imputed  to  his  children,  we  do 
not  mean,  that  the  particular  act  of  the  father  is  charged  on  the  child, 
as  if  he  had  done  it :  but  that  the  right  to  reward,  which  is  the  result 
of  that  act,  is  transferred  to  his  children. 

"  Now  if  we  would  but  thus  explain  every  text  of  Scripture  wherein 
either  imputed  sin  or  imputed  righteousness  is  mentioned,  (whether  in 
express  words,  or  in  the  plain  meaning  of  them)  we  should  find  them 
all  easy  and  intelligible,  (p.  435.) 

"  Thus  we  may  easily  understand  how  the  obedience  of  Christ  is 
imputed  to  all  his  seed  :  and  how  the  disobedience  of  Adam  is  im- 
pvited  to  all  his  children,  (p.  436.) 

"  To  confirm  this,  I  would  add  these  three  remarks : 

1.  "  There  are  several  histories  in  Scripture,  where  expressions 
of  the  same  import  occur. 

"So  Gen.  xxii.  16,  'Thy  seed  shall  possess  the  gate  of  his  ene- 
mies, because  thou  hast  obeyed  my  voice.'  Here  Abraham's  o6e- 
dience,  that  is,  the  result  of  it,  is  imputed  to  his  posterity. 

"So  Numb.  xxv.  11,  'God  gave  to  Phinehas  and  his  seed  after 
him  the  covenant  of  an  everlasting  priesthood,  because  he  was  zeal- 
ous lor  hiS  God,'  and  slew  the  criminals  in  Israel.  This  was  so 
imputed  to  his  children  that  they  also  received  the  reward  of  it.  (p. 
437.) 

"  Thus  the  sin  of  Acham  was  so  imputed  to  his  children,  that  they 
were  all  stoned  on  account  of  it.  Josh.  vii.  24.  In  like  manner  the 
covetousness  of  Gehazi  was  imputed  to  his  posterity,  (2  Kings  v.  27,) 
when  God  by  bis  prophet  pronounced,  that  the  '  leprosy  should 
cleave  unto  him  and  to  his  seed  for  ever.'  (p.  438.) 

2.  "  The  Scriptures  both  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  use 
the  words  sin  and  iniquity,  (both  in  Hebrew  and  Greek,)  to  signify 
not  only  the  criminal  actions  themselves,  but  also  the  result  and  con- 
sequences of  those  actions,  that  is,  The  guilt  or  liableness  to  punish- 
ment :  and  sometimes  the  punishment  itself,  whether  it  fall  upon  the 
original  criminal,  or  upon  others  on  his  account,  (p.  439.) 

"  In  the  same  manner  the  Scriptures  use  the  word  righteousness, 


'PX'RT  TV.]  OSICINAL  SIN.  523 

not  only  for  acts  of  obedience,  but  also  the  result  of  them,  that  is 
justification,  or  right  to  a  reward.  A  moderate  study  of  some  of  those 
texts  where  these  words  are  used,  may  convince  us  of  this. 

"  So  Job  xxxiii.  26.  '  God  will  render  to  a  man  his  righteousness :' 
that  is,  the  reward  of  it.  Hos.  x.  12.  '  Sow  to  yourselves  in  right- 
eousness, till  the  Lord  come  and  rain  righteousness  upon  you :'  that 
is,  till  he  pour  down  the  rewards  or  fruits  of  it  upon  you. 

"  I  might  add  here,  that  in  several  places  of  St.  Paul's  Epistles, 
righteoxisness  means  justification,  in  the  passive  sense  of  the  word.  (p. 
440.) 

"  So  Rom.  X.  4.  '  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law  for  righteousness  to 
€very  one  that  belie veth  :'  that  is,  in  order  to  the  justification  of  be- 
lievers. Rom.  X.  10.  •  With  the  heart  man  believeth  unto  righteous- 
ness ;'  that  is,  so  as  to  obtain  justification.  Gal.  ii.  21.  'If  righteous- 
ness,' that  is,  justification,  'come  by  the  law,  then  Christ  is  dead  in 
vain.'  This  particularly  holds,  where  the  word  Myt^oi^xi,  or  impute, 
is  joined  with  righteousness.  As  Rom.  iv.  3.  '  Abraham  believed  God, 
and  it  was  imputed  to  him  for  righteousness.'  Rom.  iv.  6.  '  His  faith 
is  counted  to  him  for  righteousness.'  It  is  not  «vt<,  or  vtts^,  for,  or 
instead  of  righteousness :  but  en  hy.aioa-vv>iv'  in  order  to  justification  or 
acceptance  with  God. 

"  And  in  other  places  of  Scripture,  a  work,  whether  good  or  evil, 
is  put  for  the  reward  of  it.  Job.  xxxiv.  11.'  The  reward  of  a  man 
will  he  render  unto  him  ;'  that  is,  the  recompense  of  it.  So  St.  Paul 
desires  Philemon,  to  impute  any  wrong  he  had  received  from  Onesi- 
mus  to  himself:  that  is,  not  the  evil  action,  but  the  damage  he  had  sus- 
tained. 

"  Indeed  when  sin  or  righteousness  is  said  to  be  imputed  to  any 
man,  on  account  of  what  himself  hath  done,  the  words  usually  de- 
note both  the  good  or  evil  actions  themselves,  and  the  legal  result  of 
them.  But  when  the  sin  or  righteousness  of  one  person  is  said  to  be 
imputed  to  another,  then  generally  those  words  mean  only  the  result 
thereof,  that  is,  a  liableness  to  punishment  on  the  one  hand,  and  to  re- 
ward on  the  other. 

"But  let  us  say  what  we  will,  to  confine  the  sense  of  the  imputa- 
tion of  sin  and  righteousness,  to  the  legal  result,  the  reward  or  punish- 
ment of  good  or  evil  actions :  let  us  ever  so  explicitly  deny,  the  im- 
putation of  the  actions  themselves  to  others,  still  Dr.  Taylor  will  level 
almost  all  his  arguments  against  the  imputation  of  the  actions  them- 
selves, and  then  triumph  in  having  demolished  what  we  never  built, 
and  refuting  what  we  never  asserted. 

3.  "  The  Scripture  does  not,  that  I  remember,  any  where  say  in 
express  words.  That  the  sin  of  Jldani  is  imputed  to  his  children  :  or 
that  the  sins  of  believers  are  imputed  to  Christ ;  or,  that  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ  is  imputed  to  believers.  But  the  true  meaning  of  all 
these  expressions  is  sufficiently  found  in  several  places  of  Scripture, 
(p.  446.) 

"  Yet  since  these  express  words  and  phrases,  of  the  imputation  of 
Adam's  sin  to  us,  of  our  sins  to  Christ,  and  of  Christ's  righteousness  to 
vs,  are  not  plainly  written  in  Scripture  ;  we  should  not  impose  it  on 
'every  Christian,  to  use  these  very  expressions.     Let  every  one  take 


024  THE   DOCTRINE   OF  [PART  V. 

his  liberty,  either  to  confine  himself  to  strictly  scriptural  language  ; 
or  of  manifesting  his  sense  of  these  plain,  scriptural  doctrines,  in 
words  and  phrases  of  his  own.  (p.  447.) 

"  But  if  the  words  were  expressly  written  in  the  Bible,  they  could 
not  reasonably  be  interpreted  in  any  other  sense,  than  this  which  1 
have  explained  by  so  many  examples,  both  in  Scripture,  history,  and 
in  common  life. 

•'  I  would  only  add,  If  it  were  allowed,  that  the  very  act  of  Adam's 
disobedience  was  imputed  to  all  his  posterity ;  that  all  the  same  sinful 
actions  which  men  have  conimitted,  were  imputed  to  Christ,  and  the 
very  actions  which  Christ  did  upon  earth,  were  imputed  to  believers : 
what  greater  punishments  would  the  posterity  of  Adam  suffer  ?  Or 
what  greater  blessings  could  believers  enjoy,  beyond  what  Scripture 
has  assigned,  either  to  mankind,  as  the  result  of  the  sin  of  Adam,  or 
to  Christ  as  the  result  of  the  sins  of  men  ;  or  to  believers,  as  the  re- 
sult of  the  righteousness  of  Christ  ?" 


PART  V. 

THE    DOCTRINE    OF    ORIGINAL    SIN. 

I  BELIEVE  every  impartial  reader  is  now  able  to  judge,  whether 
Dr.  Taylor  has  solidly  answered  Dr.  Watts  or  not. '  But  there  is  an- 
other not  inconsiderable  writer  whom  I  cannot  find  he  has  answered 
at  all,  though  he  has  published  four  several  tracts,  professedly  against 
Dr.  Taylor :  of  which  he  could  not  be  ignorant,  because  they  are 
mentioned  in  the  "  Ruin  and  Recovery  of  Human  J^ature."  I  mean, 
the  Rev.  Mr.  Samuel  Hebden,  minister  at  Wrentham  in  Suffolk.  I 
think  it  tlierefore  highly  expedient,  to  subjoin  a  short  abstract  of  these 
also  ;  the  rather,  because  the  tracts  themselves  are  very  scarce,  hav- 
ing been  for  some  time  out  of  print. 

EccLEs.  vii.  29. 

JLo !  this  only  have  I  found,  That  God  made  Man  upright ;  hut  they 
have  sought  out  many  Inventions. 

"  IN  the  preceding  verse  Solomon  had  declared,  how  few  wise 
and  good  persons  he  had  found  in  the  whole  course  of  his  life.  But 
lest  any  should  blame  the  providence  of  God  for  this,  he  here  ob- 
serves that  these  were  not  what  God  made  man  at  first ;  and  that  their 
being  what  they  were  not,  was  the  effect  of  a  wretched  apostacy  from 
God.  The  original  words  stand  thus,  "  Only  see  thou,  I  havefound.^' 
' (P-  3.) 

"  Only :  This  word  sets  a  mark  on  what  it  is  prefixed  to,  as  a  truth 
<of  great  certainty  and  importance.  See,  observe,  thou.  He  invites 
every  hearer  and  reader,  in  particular,  to  consider  what  he  was  about 
lo  offer.     /  Imie  found.    I  have  discovered  this  certain  truth,  and 


TAKT  v.]  ORIQINAI,   SIN.  32^^ 

assert  it  on  the  fullest  evidence  ;   That  God  made  man  upright ;  but 
they  have  sought  out  many  inventions,  (p.  4.) 

"  The  Hebrew  word  ■\iff\  which  we  render  wp-jg/i/,  is  properly  op- 
posed to  crooked,  irregidar,  perverse.  It  is  applied  to  things  to  signify 
their  being  straight,  or  agreeable  to  rule.  But  it  is  likewise  applied 
both  to  God  and  man,  with  the  words  and  works  of  both.  As  ap- 
plied to  God,  the  ways  of  God,  the  word  of  God,  it  is  joined  with 
good.  Psalm  xxv.  8  ;  with  righteous.  Psalm  cxix.  137  ;  with  true  and 
good.  Neh.  ix.  13 ;  where  mention  is  made  of  right  judgments,  true 
laws,  good  statutes.  The  uprightness  with  which  God  is  said  to  minis- 
ter judgment  to  the  people  answers  to  righteousness.  In  a  word, 
God's  uprightness  is  the  moral  rectitude  of  his  nature,  infinitely  wise 
and  good,  just  and  perfect.  The  uprightness  of  man,  is  his  conformity 
of  heart  and  life  to  the  rule  he  is  under,  which  is  the  law  or  will  of 
God.  Accordingly  we  read  of  '  uprightness  of  heart.'  Psalm  xxxvi. 
10;  Job  xxxiii.  3;  and  uprightness  of  way  or  conversation.  Psalm 
xxxvii.  14,  and  often  elsewhere.  The  upright  man  throughout  the 
Scripture,  is  a  truly  good  man,  a  man  of  integrity,  a  holy  person,  (p. 
5,  6.)  In  Job  i.  1.  8,  and  ii.  3,  upright  is  the  same  with  perfect,  (a? 
in  Psalm  xxxvii.  37 ;  and  many^other  places,)  and  is  explained  by, 
one  '  who  feareth  God  and  escheweth  evil.'  In  Job  viii.  6.  it  is  join- 
ed, and  is  the  same  with,  pure.  In  the  same  sense  it  is  taken  (to 
mention  but  a  few  out  of  many  texts  which  might  be  produced)  Prov. 
X.  29.  '  The  ^vay  of  the  Lord  is  strength  to  the  upright,  but  destruc- 
tion shall  be  to  the  workers  of  iniquity."  Chap.  xi.  3.  '  The  integrity 
of  the  upright  shall  guide  them  ;  but  the  perverseness  of  transgressors 
shall  destroy  them.'  Ver.  6.  '  The  righteousness  of  the  upright  shall 
deliver  them  ;  but  transgressors  shall  be  taken  in  their  own  naughti- 
ness.' Ver.  11.  '  By  the  blessing  of  the  upright  the  city  is  exalted.' 
Ch.  XV.  8.  '  The  sacrifice  of  the  wicked  is  an  abomination  to  the 
Lord,  but  the  prayer  of  the  upright  is  his  delight.'  Ch.  xxi.  29.  'A 
^vicked  man  hardeneth  his  face ;  but  as  for  the  upright,  he  directeth 
his  way.'  From  all  these  texts  it  manifestly  appears,  that  itprightness, 
as  applied  to  man,  is  the  very  same  with  righteousness,  holiness,  or  in- 
Ugrity  of  heart  and  conversation. 

"  When  tlierefore  Solomon  says,  '  God  made  man  upright,'  the 
plain,  undeniable  meaning  is,  God  at  first  formed  man  righteous  or 
lioly  :  although  '  they  have  sought  out  many  inventions.'  They, — 
this  refers  to  Adam,  which  is  both  a  singular  and  a  plural  noun  :  they, 
our  first  parents,  and  with  them  their  posterity,  '  have  sought  out 
many  inventions,'  many  contrivances  to  offend  God  and  injure  them- 
selves. These  many  inventions  are  opposed  to  the  uprightness,  the 
simplicity  of  heart  and  integrity,  with  which  our  first  parents,  and 
mankind  in  them,  were  originally  made  by  God.  (p.  7.) 

'•  The  doctrine  of  the  text  then  is,  that  God,  at  his  creation  '  made 
man  upright  or  righteous  ;'  not  only  rational  and  a  free-agent,  but  holy. 
Therefore,  to  maintain,  that  "  Man  neither  was  nor  could  be  formed 
holy,  because  none  can  be  holy,  but  in  consequence  of  his  own  choice 
and  endeavour,"  is  bold  indeed  !  To  prove  the  contrary,  and  justify 
Solomon's  assertion,  I  offer  a  few  plain  arguments,  (p.  8.) 

Vol.  9.— E  e 


326  THE    DOCTRINE    OF  [PART  V. 

"  1.  Moses  in  his  account  of  the  creation  writes,  *  And  God  said. 
Let  us  make  man  in  our  own  image.'  Now  that  righteousness  or 
holiness  is  the  principal  part  of  this  image  of  God,  appears  from 
Eph.  iv.  22.  24.  and  Col,  iii.  9,  10.  On  which  passages  I  observe, 
1.  By  the  old  man  is  not  meant  a  Heathenish  life,  or  an  ungodly  con- 
versation ;  but  a  corrupt  nature.  For  the  Apostle  elsewhere  speaks 
of  '  our  old  man,  as  crucified  with  Christ ;'  and  here  distinguishes 
from  it  their  '  former  conversation,'  or  sinful  actions,  which  he  calls 
•the  deeds  of  the  old  man.'  2.  By  'the  new  man  is  meant,  not  a 
new  course  of  life,  (as  the  Socinians  interpret  it,)  but  a  principle  of 
grace,  called  by  St.  Peter,  '  the  hidden  man  of  the  heart,'  and  a  '  di- 
vine nature.'  3.  '  To  put  otf  the  old  man,'  (the  same  as  to  'crucify 
the  flesh')  is  to  subdue  and  mortify  our  corrupt  nature  :  to  'put  on  thc 
new  man,'  is  to  stir  up  and  cultivate  that  gracious  principle,  that  new 
nature.  This,  saith  the  Apostle,  '  is  created  after  God,  in  righteous- 
ness and  true  holiness.'  '  It  is  created  :'  which  cannot  properly  be 
said,  of  a  new  course  of  life  ;  but  may,  of  a  new  nature.  It  is  created 
'  after  God,'  or  '  in  his  image  and  likeness,'  mentioned  by  Moses. 
But  what  is  it  to  be  '  created  after  God,'  or  '  in  his  image?'  It  is, 
to  be  '  created  in  righteousness  and  true  holiness :  (termed  knowledge. 
the  practical  knowledge  of  God.  Col.  iii.  10  )  But  if  '  to  be  created 
after  God,'  or  '  in  his  image  and  likeness,'  is  to  be  created  in  right- 
eousness and  holiness  by  which  we  are  '  created  unto  good  works,'  is 
a  netv  man,  a  divine  nature ;  it  is  easy  to  infer,  that  man  was  at  first 
created  righteous  or  holy.  (p.  9,  10.) 

"  II.  All  things,  as  at  first  made  by  God,  were  very  good.  Nor 
Indeed  could  he  make  them  otherwise.  Now  a  rational  being  is  not 
good,  unless  his  rational  powers  are  all  devoted  to  God.  The  good- 
ness of  man,  as  a  rational  being,  must  lie  in  a  devotedness  and  con- 
secration to  God.  Consequently,  man  was  at  first  thus  devoted  to 
God  :  otherwise  he  was  not  good.  But  this  devotedness  to  the  love 
and  service  of  God  is  true  righteousness  or  holiness.  This  righteous- 
ness then,  this  goodness,  or  uprightness,  this  regular  and  due  state,  or 
disposition  of  the  human  mind,  was  at  first  natural  to  man.  It  was 
wrought  into  his  nature,  and  con-created  with  his  rational  powers. 
A  rational  creature,  as  such,  is  capable  of  knowing,  loving,  serving, 
living  in  communion  with  the  Most  Holy  One.  Adam  at  first  either 
did  or  did  not  use  this  capacity ;  either  he  knew  and  loved  God,  or 
he  did  not.  If  he  did  not,  he  was  not  very  good,  no,  nor  good  at  all ; 
if  he  did,  he  was  upright,  righteous,  holy.  (p.  12.) 

"III.  When  God  vested  man  with  dominion  over  the  other  crea- 
tures, how  was  he  qualified  for  exercising  that  dominion,  utdess  he 
liad  in  himself  a  principle  of  love  and  obedience  to  the  supreme  Go- 
vernor ?  Did  not  God  form  the  cieatui^es  obedient  to  man,  to  con- 
firm man  in  his  loving  obedience  to  God  ?  Or  did  he  create  them, 
with  a  disposition  to  depend  on  and  obey  man  as  their  lord,  and  not 
create  man  with  a  disposition  to  obey  and  live  dependent  on  the  Lord 
of  all  ?  But  this  disposhion  is  uprightness.  Therefore  God  '  made 
•man  upright.'  (p.  13.) 

•  IV.  Either  man  was  created  with  principles  of  love  and  obe 


VXnT  v.]  GRIGIXAL    Sl?f.  027 

dience,  or  he  was  created  an  enemy  to  God.  One  of  those  must  be: 
for  as  all  the  duty  required  of  man,  as  a  rational  being,  is  summarily 
comprised  in  love,  a  supreme  love  to  God,  and  a  subordinate  love  to 
others,  for  his  sake :  so  there  can  be  no  medium  between  a  rational 
creature's  loving  God,  and  not  loving,  which  is  a  degree  of  enmity  to 
him.  Either,  O  man,  thou  lovest  God,  or  thou  dost  not :  if  thou  dost, 
thou  art  holy  or  righteous :  if  thou  dost  not,  thou  art  indisposed  to 
-^erve  him  in  such  a  manner,  and  with  such  a  frame  of  spirit  as  he 
requires.  Then  thou  art  an  enemy  to  God,  a  rebel  against  his  au- 
thority. But  God  could  not  create  man  in  such  a  state,  in  a  state  of 
enmity  against  himself.  It  follows,  that  man, was  created  a  lover  of 
God,  that  is,  righteous  and  holy.  (p.  14.) 

"  In  a  word.  Can  yoKX  prove,  either  that  man  was  not  'created 
after  God,'  or  that  this  does  not  mean  being  '  created  in  righteousness 
and  true  holiness  V  Was  not  man,  as  all  creatures,  good  in  his  kind  ? 
And  is  a  rational  creature  good,  unless  all  its  powers  are  devoted  to 
God  ?  Was  not  man  duly  qualified  at  first  to  exercise  dominion  over 
the  other  creatures  ?  And  could  he  be  so  qualified  without  a  prin- 
ciple of  love  and  obedience  to  their  common  Lord?  Lastly,  Can 
any  man  prove,  either  that  man  could  be  innocent  if  he  did  not  love 
the  Lord  his  God  with  all  his  heart  ?  Or  that  such  a  love  to  God  is 
not  righteousness  and  true  holiness?  (p.  15.) 

"  From  the  doctrine  of  man's  Original  Righteousness  we  may  easily 
conclude  that  of  Original  Sin.  For  this  reason  it  is,  that  some  so 
earnestly  protest  against  original  righteousness,  because  they  dread 
looking  on  theniselves  as  by  nutuie  fallen  creatures  and  children  of 
wrath.  If  man  was  not  holy  at  first,  he  could  not  fall  from  a  state  of 
holiness :  and  consequently  the  first  transgression  exposed  him  and 
his  posterity  to  nothing  but  temporal  death.  But  on  the  other  hand, 
if  'man  was  made  upright,'  it  follows,  1.  That  man,  when  he  fell, 
lost  his  original  righteousness,  and  therewith  his  title  to  God's  favour 
and  to  communion  with  God.  2.  That  he  thereby  incurred  not  only 
temporal  but  spiritual  death.  He  became  '  dead  in  sin  and  a  child  ol 
wrath.'  And,  3.  That  all  his  posterity  are  born  with  such  a  nature, 
not  as  man  had  at  first,  but  as  he  contracted  by  his  fall.  (p.  20,  21.) 

Gen.  ii.  16,  17. 

.Mnd  the  Lord  God  commanded  the  Man,  saying,  Of  every  Tree  of 
the  Garden  thou  mayest  freely  eat :  but  of  the  Tree  of  Knoidedge  of 
good  and  evil,  th-m  shall  not  eat  of  it.  For  in  the  day  that  thou  eatesi 
thereof  thou  shall  surehy  die. 

"GOD  forbad  man  to  eat  of  this  tree,  in  token  of  his  sovereign 
authority,  and  for  the  exercise  of  man's  love,  and  the  trial  of  his  obe- 
dience. The  words  added,  '  In  the-  day  diou  eatest  thereof  thou 
shalt  surely  die,'  or  literally.  In  dying  thou  shalt  die,  mean,  not  only. 
Thou  shalt  certainly  die,  but  Thou  shalt  suffer  every  kind  of  death.  Th\ 
soul  as  well  as  thy  body  shall  die.  And  indeed  if  God  made  man 
upright  01  holy:  if  man  at  first  enjoyed  'the  life  of  God,'  includmg 


328  THE    DOCTRINE    Oi  [PART  V, 

holiness  joined  with  blessedness :  and  if  the  miserable  state  of  the 
soul  (as  well  as  the  dissolution  of  the  body)  is  in  Scripture  termed 
death,  it  plainly  follows,  that  the  original  threatening  includes  nothing 
less  than  a  loss  of  man's  original  uprightness,  of  his  title  to  God's 
favour,  and  a  life  of  happy  communion  with  God.  (p.  26,  27.) 

"  The  words  mean  farther.  Thou  shall  instantly  die ;  as  soon  as: 
ever  thou  eatest.  And  so  he  did.  For  in  that  instant  his  original 
righteousness,  tide  to  God's  favour,  and  communion  with  God  being 
lost,  he  was  spiritually  dead,  dead  in  sin,  his  soul  was  dead  to  God, 
and  his  body  liable  to  death,  temporal  and  eternal,  tp.  28,  29.) 

"And  as  there  is  a  threatening  of  death  expressed  in  these  words 
so  a  promise  of  life  is  implied.  The  threatening  death,  only  in  case 
of  disobedience,  implied,  that  otherwise  he  should  not  die.  And  even 
since  the  fall,  the  law  of  God  promises  life  to  obedience,  as  well  as 
threatens  death  to  disobedience :  since  the  tenor  of  it  is,  '  Do  this 
and  live :'  '  If  diou  wilt  enter  into  life,  keep  the  commandments." 
(p.  30.) 

'•  Now  a  law  given  by  God  with  a  promise  of  life  and  a  threaten- 
ing of  death,  consented  to  by  man,  is  evidently  a  covenant.  For  what 
is  a  covenant  ?  But  a  mutual  agreement  of  two  or  more  parties  on 
certain  terms  ?  Now  in  this  sense  God  covenanted  with  man,  and 
man  covenanted  with  God.  God  gave  a  law.  promising  life  in  cast- 
of  obedience,  and  threatening  death  in  case  of  disobedience.  And 
man  accepted  of  the  terms.  Here  therefore  was  a  real  covenant, 
(p.  31.) 

•'  But  to  guard  this  against  objections,  I  adcF^ 

"  1.  We  do  not  affirm,  that  God  visibly  appeared,  and  formally 
treated  with  Adam,  as  one  man  with  another.  Without  so  formal  a 
procedure,  God  could  and  doubtless  did.  signify  to  him,  on  wha' 
terms  he  was  to  expect  life  or  death,  (p.  32!) 

"  Wc  do  not  assert,  that  God  promised  to  translate  him  to  heaven  : 
but  without  question  he  made  Adam  sensible,  that  if  he  continued 
obedient  he  should  continue  happy,  whether  in  Paradise  or  some  other 
region. 

"3.  If  one  greatly  superior  will  freely  condescend  to  treat  with  an 
inferior,  this  does  not  disannul  the  mutual  agreement,  or  hinder  its 
having  the  nature  of  a  covenant.  So  God  entered  into  a  proper  co- 
venant with  Abraham  of  old,  and  with  his  people  in  the  gospel.  And 
if  so,  much  more  might  he  do  so  with  man,  Avhen  perfectly  upright 
toward  God.  (p.  33.) 

"  And  this  covenant  Avas  made  with  Adam  not  only  for  himself,  but 
likewise  for  all  his  posterity.     This  appears,* 

"  1.  From  the  tenor  of  the  original  threatening,  compared  wiUi 
die  present  state  of  mankind.  For  it  is  evident,  that  every  one  oi 
his  posterity  is  born  liable  to  death :  tliat  the  death  to  which  all  are 
liable,  was  not  threatened  but  in  case  of  man's  sinning :  that  man  was 
not  liable  to  death  till  he  sinned,  and  his  being  so  was  the  result  oi 
Ihe  threatening ;  and,  that  the  Scripture  constantly  points  at  sin  as 
the  sole  cause  of  death,  and  of  all  suffering.  But  if  all  mankind 
are  born  liable  to  that  which  was  originally  threatened  only  to  sin,  the>> 


PART  v.]  ORIGINAL   SIX.  32'^ 

all  mankind  are  accounted  sinners,  and  as  such  are  concerned  in 
the  original  threatening,  and  consequently  in  the  original  promise,, 
(p.  34.) 

"  2.  From  1  Cor.  xv.  22.  '  In  Adam  all  die.'  Here  the  Apostle- 
speaks  not  of  both  our  parents,  but  of  Adam  singly,  (as  also  Rom. 
V.)  to  denote  our  peculiar  relation  to  him.  The  all  mentioned  are  all 
his  natural  descendants,  who  all  die  in  or  through  him,  that  is,  are 
liable  to  death  on  account  of  their  relation  to  him.  And  it  is  not  only 
a  bodily  death  that  is  here  spoken  of;  for  it  stands  opposed  not  to  o 
bare  revival  of  the  body,  but  to  a  happy  and  glorious  resurrection,  such 
as  they  tkat  are  Christ's  will  partake  of  at  his  second  coming.  For 
of  this  resurrection,  not  that  of  the  ungodly,  the  Apostle  is  speaking 
throughout  this  chapter.  But  they  could  not  die  in  Adam,  if  they  did . 
not  in  some  sense  sin  in  him,  and  fall  with  him :  if  the  covenant  had 
not  been  made  with  him,  not  for  himself  only  but  for  all  his  posterity, 
(p.  35,  36.) 

"3.  From  verse  45  and  47  of  the  same  chapter.     The  first  Man 
Adam,  and  the  second  J\Ian,  the  last  Adam,  are  here  opposed.     Now 
why  is  Christ,  notwithstanding  the  millions  of  men  intervening  be 
tween  Adam  and  him,  and  following  after  his  birth,  called  the  second 
Man,  and  the  last  Adam?     We  have  an  answer.   Rom.  v.  12.  14, 
&c.  where  Adam  is  said  to  be  a  figure  of  Christ :  and  the  resem- 
blance between  them  is  shown  to  lie  in  this,  that  as  sin  and  deaih  de- 
scend from  one,  so  righteousness  and  life  from  the  other.     Conse- 
quently what  Christ  is  with  regard  to  all  his  spiritual  seed,  that  Adam  - 
is  with  regard  to  all  his  natural  descendants,  namely,  a  public  person, 
a  federal  head,  a  legal  representative :  one  with  whom  the  covenant  ,- 
was  made  not  only  for  himself,  but  also  for  his  whole  posterity." 

John  iii.  5,  G. 

Except  a  Man  be  born  of  Water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  - 

the  kingdom  of  God. 
That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh,  is  flesh  :  and  that  which  is  born  of  tht- 

Spirit,  is  Spirit. 

'•IN  this  text  we  have, 

'•  I.  The  New-Birth  described  ; 

•'II.  The  Necessity  of  it  insisted  ojk 

''■  III.  The  original  Corniption  of  every  child  of  Adam  observed 
as  that  from  which  the  necessity  of  such  a  change  arises. 

"1.  The  new-birth  is  here  described.  Whatever  this  implies,  the 
Spirit  of  God  is  the  sole  author  of  it.  He  does  not  help  a  man  to 
regenerate  himself,  but  takes  the  work  into  his  own  hands.  A  child 
of  God,  as  such,  is  not  born  of  blood;  does  not  become  so  by  a  de- 
scent from  pious  parents.  He  is  not  born  of  the  tvill  of  the  flesh,  is 
not  renewed  by  the  power  of  his  own  carnal  will ;  nor  of  man,  of 
9Jiy  man  whatsoever,  but  of  God :  by  the  sole  power  of  his  Spirit. 

'•In  regeneration  the  Holy  Spirit  mortifies  the  old  man,  corrupt, 
nature,  and  breathes  a  principle  of  life  into  the  soul :  a  principle  ol 

Ee2 


330  THE   DOCTRINE   OF  [PAKTA% 

faith,  of  sincere  love,  and  willing  obedience  to  God.  Hewho  wa.- 
dead  in  sin,  is  now  dead  to  sin,  and  '  alive  to  God  through  Jesuf- 
Christ'  God  has  '  created  in  him  a  clean  heart,'  and  '  renewed  a 
right  spirit  within  him.'  He  has  '  created  him  unto  good  works,' 
and  '  written  his  law  in  his  heart.'  But  if  the  Spirit  of  God  is  the 
sole  agent  in  the  work  of  regeneration ;  if  the  soul  of  man  has  no 
active  interest  or  concern  in  his  being  '  born  again  :'  if  man  was  cre- 
ated holy,  and  regeneration  reinstamps  that  holy  image  of  God  on 
the  sold  :  if  '  the  new  man  is  created  after  God  in  righteousness  and 
irue  holiness :'  if  the  corruption  of  nature  (termed  '  the  old  man  or 
flesh')  is  not  contracted  by  imitation  or  custom,  but  is  an  inbred, 
hereditary  distemper,  coeval  with  our  nature  :  if  all  tndy  good  works 
are  the  fruits  of  a  good  heart,  a  good  principle  wrought  in  the  soul  : 
it  plainly  follows,  that  the  faith,  hope,  love,  fear,  which  distinguish  th( 
children  of  God  from  others,  are  not  of  the  nature  of  acquired,  but 
of  infused  habits  or  principles.  To  say  then,  '  That  all  holiness 
must  be  the  effect  of  a  man's  own  choice  and  endeavour,  and  that  by 
a  right  use  of  his  natural  powers  every  man  may  and  must  attain  a 
habit  of  holiness,  that  is,  be  born  again ;'  however  pleasing  it  may  be 
to  human  vanity,  is  contrary  to  the  whole  tenor  of  Scripture. 

•'And  all  the  scriptural  expressions  on  this  head  are  grounded  oj 
ihe  real  nature  of  things.  Sin  is  of  the  nature  of  filth  and  corrup- 
tion. It  pollutes  the  whole  man,  and  renders  him  as  an  unclean  thin^ 
in  the  sight  of  God.  When  therefore  the  Spirit  of  God  removes 
this,  he  is  said  to  '  create  a  clean  heart,'  to  '  purify  the  heart,'  to 
'  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  us,'  to  '  wash  us  from  our  filthiness.'  And 
this  cleansing  efficacy  is  in  the  text  expressed  by  being  '  born  of  wate.' 
and  of  the  Spirit.' 

"When  therefore  our  Lord  speaks  of  being  -born  of  the  Spirit,' 
his  plain  meaning  is,  there  is  a  spiritual  cleansing  you  must  partake 
of,  mentioned  in  those  promises,  '  I  will  sprinkle  clean  water  upon 
you  and  ye  shall  be  clean,  from  all  your  fdthiness  and  from  all  yom- 
idols  will  I  cleanse  you.  A  nevv^  heart  also  will  I  give  you,  and  a 
new  spirit  will  I  put  within  you.  And  I  will  take  away  the  ston} 
heart,  and  I  v/ill  give  you  a  heart  of  flesh.'  These  promises  give  u> 
a  plain  description  of  the  Spirit's  regenerating  work :  without  ex- 
periencing which,  our  state  is  miserable  now,  and  will  be  much  more 
so  hereafter. 

"II.  For  this  spiritual  renovation  of  the  soul  is  indispensably  ne 
eessary.  Without  it  none  can  '  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven.' 
either  tlie  kingdom  of  grace  or  of  glory. 

"  1.  '  Except  a  man  be  born  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  dif 
kingdom'  of  grace ;  he  cannot  be  a  loyal  subject  of  Jesus  Christ. 
By  nature  we  are  subjects  of  Satan  :  and  such  we  must  remain, 
unless  renewing  grace  '  translate  us  into  the  kingdom  of  God's  deai- 
Son.' 

"  2.  Consequently,  '  except  we  are  born  again,  we  cannot  enter 
into  the  kingdom'  of  glory.  Indeed,  supposing  he  could  be  admitted 
there,  what  could  an  unregenerate  sinner  do  in  heaven  ^     He  could 


•ARTV.j  OEIGINAS,   eiy,  331 

not  possibly  have  any  relish  either  for  the  business,  tiie  company,  or 
the  enjoyments  of  that  world. 

"  III.  Our  Lord  having  asserted  the  absolute  necessity  of  the 
New  Birth,  to  show  the  ground  of  this  necessity,  adds,  '  That  which 
is  born  of  the  flesh,  is  flesh  ;  and  that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit,  is 
spirit.'     Here  observe, 

"  1.  Our  Lord  opposes  flesh  and  spirit  to  each  other,  which  op- 
position we  often  meet  with.  Whatever  therefore  is  meant  by  these 
two,  they  denote  things  opposite. 

"  2.  He  speaks  here  of  two  several  births,  which  are  distinctly 
inentioned. 

"  The  former  of  these  two  is  spoken  of  as  that  which  renders  the 
other  so  necessary.  Because  *that  which  is  born  of  the  flesh,  is 
ilesh,'  therefore  '  we  must  be  born  of  the  Spirit.'  Therefore  this 
great  change  must  be  wrought  in  us,  or  we  cannot  '  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  God.' 

"  4.  If  the  latter  of  these  is  made  necessary  by  the  former,  then 
to  be  born  flesh  is  to  be  born  corrupt  and  sinful.  And  indeed  the 
word  flesh  is  very  frequently  taken  for  the  corrupt  principle  in  man 
It  is  always  so  taken  when^it  stands  opposed  to  the  spirit,  or  to  that 
inwrought  principle  of  obedience,  which  itself  also  (taking  the  name 
of  its  author)  is  sometimes  termed  spirit. 

"  Now  in  the  text,  whatever  or  whoever  is  born  of  a  man  since 
the  fall,  is  denominated ^es/i.  And  ihnt  flesh  is  here  put,  not  for  sin- 
less/mi'%,  but  sinful  corruption,  we  learn  from  its  being  opposed  to 
the  spirit.  Christ  was  born  frail,  as  well  as  we,  and  in  this  sense 
w?LS flesh:  yet  being  without  sin  he  had  no  need  to  be  'born  of  the 
Spirit.'  This  is  not  made  necessary  by  any  sinless  infirmities,  but  b} 
a  sinful  nature  only.  This  alone  is  opposite  to  the  spirit :  thus 
therefore  Ave  must  understand  it  here. 

"  But  Dr.  Taylor  says,  '  To  be  born  of  the  flesh  is  only  to  be  na- 
turally born  of  a  woman.'  I  answer,  Is  not  flesh  opposed  to  spirit 
ill  this  verse  1  Is  it  not  the  Spirit  of  God  which  is  spoken  of  in  the 
kitter  clause,  together  with  the  principle  of  grace,  which  is  in  every 
regenerate  person?  And  is  any  thing  beside  sinful  corruption  op- 
})osite  to  the  Spirit  of  God  1  No  certainly :  bvxt  if  so,  and  if  wherever 
flesh  is  opposed  to  the  Spirit,  it  implies  sinful  corruption,  then  it  i- 
evident  to  be  '  born  of  the  flesh'  is  to  be  the  sinful  offspring  of  sinful 
parents,  so  as  to  have  need  of  the  renewing  influences  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  on  that  account  even  from  our  birth. 

"  If  to  '  walk  after  the  flesh,'  as  opposed  to  'walking  after  the 
Spirit,'  is  to  follow  our  sinful  inclinations  ;  if  to  <  be  in  the  flesh'  op- 
posed to  '  being  in  the  Spirit,'  is  to  be  in  a  state  of  sin ;  if '  the  flesir  ' 
and  'the  Spirit'  are  two  contrary  principles,  which  counteract  each 
other.  (Gal.  v.  16,  17.)  If  '  the  works  of  the  flesh'  and  '  the  lusts  oJ 
the  flesh'  are  opposed  to  '  the  Spirit,'  and  '  the  fruit  of  the  Spirit :' 
then  '  to  be  born  of  the  flesh'  must  signify  more  than  barely  to  be 
born  of  a  woman.  Had  Adam  transmitted  a  pure  nature  to  his  de- 
scendants, still  each  of  them  would  have  been  born  of  a  v/oraan ; 


332  THE  DOCTB.TNE  OF  [PARS' V, 

hut  tliey  would  have  had  no  necessity  of  '  being  born  of  the  Spirit,' 
or  renewed  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 

*'  But  what  is  that  corruption  of  nature  which  the  Scripture  terms 
flesh?  There  are  two  branches  of  it ;  1.  A  want  of  original  right- 
eousness.    2.  A  natural  propensity  to  sin. 

"1.  A  want  of  original  righteousness.  God  created  man  right- 
eous; holiness  was  con-natural  to  his  soul;  a  principle  of  love  and 
obedience  to  God.  But  when  he  sinned  he  lost  this  principle.  And 
every  man  is  now  born  totally  void  both  of  the  knowledge  and  love 
of  God. 

"  2.  A  natural  propensity  to  sin  is  in  every  man.  And  this  i? 
inseparable  from  the  other.  If  man  is  born  and  grows  up  without 
the  knowledge  or  love  of  God,  he  is  born  and  grows  up  propense  to 
sin  :  which  includes  two  things,  an  aversion  to  what  is  good,  and  an 
inclination  to  what  is  evil. 

"  We  are  naturally  averse  to  what  is  good.  '  The  carnal  mind  is 
enmity  against  God.'  Nature  does  not,  will  not,  cannot  submit  to 
his  holy,  just,  and  good  law.  Therefore  '  they  that  are  in  the  flesh 
cannot  please  God.'  Being  averse  to  the  will,  law,  and  ways  of  God. 
they  are  utterly  indisposed  for  such  an  obedience,  as  the  relation 
between  God  and  man  indispensably  requires. 

'•'And  as  we  are  all  naturally  averse  to  what  is  good,  so  we  arc. 
naturally  inclined  to  what  is  evil.  Even  young  children  of  themselves 
run  into  evil ;  but  are  with  difficulty  brought  to  practise  what  is 
good.  No  sooner  do  they  discover  reason,  than  they  discover  evil, 
unreasonable  dispositions.  And  these  discovering  themselves  in. 
every  one,  even  from  his  early  childhood,  manifestly  prove  the  inbred 
and  universal  corruption  of  human  nature. 

"But  why  is  this  corruption  termed  Jlesh?  Not  because  it  i'; 
«'onfined  to  the  body.  It  is  the  corruption  of  our  whole  nature,  and 
is  therefore  termed  the  old  man.  Not  because  it  consists  merely  in 
a  repugnance  of  the  sensual  appetites  to  reason.  This  is  but  one 
branch  of  that  corruption ;  the  whole  of  it  is  far  more  extensive. 
Not  because  it  is  primarily  seated  in  the  body  ;  it  is  primarily  seated 
in  the  soul.  If  'sin  reigns  in  our  mortal  bodies,'  it  is  because  the, 
.sinful  soul  uses  the  bodily  members  as  '  instruments  of  unrighteous- 
ness.' 

"  Nay,  all  which  those  words,  '  That  which  is  born  of  flesh  is 
flesh,'  mean,  is  this,  all  men  being  descended  of  frail  and  mortal 
parents,  are  like  them,  frail  and  mortal.  In  consequence  of  Adam'e^ 
sin  all  his  descendants  die." 

"  I  answer,  1.  Though  this  is  true,  it  is  not  the  whole  truth.  Nor 
i!i  it  the  proper  truth  of  the  text :  which  speaks  of  our  being  '  born 
of  the  flesh,'  as  the  reason  why  we  must  be  born  of  the  Spirit. 

"  2.  It  is  not  consistent  with  the  moral  perfections  of  God,  for . 
.sinless  creatures  to  be  born  mortal.     Death  in  every  sense  of  the 
word  is  the  proper  loages  of  sin.     Sin  has  the  same  casual  influence 
on  death,  as  the  obedience  of  Christ  has  on  eternal  life. 

"3.  We  were  not  only  born  mortal,  but  'children  of  wrath  ;V 
we  who  are  now  regenerate  as  well  as  others, 


T^ART  v.]  ORIGINAL   SIN,  333 

"  4.  The  Scripture  ascribes  both  our  mortality  and  corruption  ta 
our  relation  to  Adam.  'In  him  all  die;  through  the  offence  of 
one,  many,'  all  mankind,  « are  dead,'  liable  to  death.  Again  :  '  By 
the  disobedience  of  one,'  the  same,  'many  are  constituted  sinners.* 
Therefore  when  our  Lord  says,  '  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is 
flesh,'  he  means  not  only,  that  we  and  our  parents  are  mortal :  but 
that  all  mankind  derive  spiritual  as  well  as  temporal  dealh,  from  theii 
first  father. 


THE  SCRIPTURE  DOCTRINE 

Of  Imputed  Sin  and  Righteousness. 

*'  1.  «  Sin  is  a  transgression  of  the  law,'  of  that  law  of  God  iv 
which  a  rational  creature  is  subject.  Righteousness  is,  a  fulfilment 
of,  or  conformity  to  that  law.  This  is  the  proper  scriptural  sense  of 
the  words.  But  as  sin  involves  the  creature  in  guilt,  that  is  a  liable- 
ness  to  punishment,  the  same  words  are  often  used,  to  denote  either 
sin  itself,  or  guilt  and  punishment.  On  the  other  hand,  righteousness 
denotes  not  only  a  fulfilling  of  the  law,  but  also  a  freedom  from 
guilt,  and  punishment.  Yea,  and  sometimes  all  the  rewards  of  right- 
eousness, (p.  1,  2.) 

"  Accordingly,  to  impute  sin,  is  either  to  impute  sin  ii^elf,  u?  guiV. 
on  the  account  of  it.  To  impute  ein  itself  to  a  person,  is  to  account 
him  a  transgressor  of  the  law :  to  pronounce  him  such :  or  to  treat 
him  as  a  transgressor.  To  impute  guilt  to  a  person,  is  to  account 
him  obnoxious  to  a  threatened  punishment :  to  pronounce  him  so  ; 
or  to  inflict  that  punishment.  So,  to  impute  righteousness,  properlj 
so  called,  is  to  account  him  a  fulfiller  of  the  law  :  to  pronounce  him 
so  to  be :  and  to  treat  him  as  righteous.  And  to  impute  righteousness 
as  opposed  to  guilt,  is  to  account,  to  pronounce,  and  to  treat  him  as 
guiltless,  (p.  5.) 

"  Thus  much  is  agreed.  But  the  point  in  question  is,  "Does  God 
impute  no  sin  or  righteousness  but  what  is  personal?"  Dr.  Taylor 
positively  asserts,  he  does  not.  I  undertake  to  prove,  that  he  does : 
that  he  imputes  Adam's  first  sin  to  all  mankind,  and  our  sins  to  Christ, 
(p.  5.) 

"  I.  God  imputes  Adam's j^rsi  sin  to  all  mankind.  I  do  not  mean 
that  the  actual  commission  of  it  was  imputed  to  any  beside  himself:  (it 
was  impossible  it  should.)  Nor  is  the  guilt  of  it  imputed  to  any  of 
his  descendants,  in  the  full  latitude  of  it,  or  in  regard  to  its  attendant 
circumstances.  It  constitutes  none  of  them  equally  guilty  with 
him.  Yet  both  that  sin  itself,  and  a  degree  of  guilt  on  account  of  it 
are  imputed  to  all  his  posterity:  the  sin  itself  is  imputed  to  them,  as 
included  in  their  head.  And  on  this  account,  they  are  reputed 
ijuilty,  are  '  children  of  wrath,'  liable  to  the  threatened  punishment. 


334  THE    DOCTRINE    OF  [PAET  'a. 

And  this  cannot  be  denied,  supposing,  I,  Man's  original  righteous- 
ness.    2.  Adam's  being  the  federal  head  of  all  mankind,   (p.  6.) 

"  Man's  original  righteousness  has  been  largely  proved.  Let  me 
add  only  an  argument  ad  hominem.  Supposing  (not  granting)  that 
the  Son  of  God,  is  no  more  than  the  first  of  creatures,  either  he  was 
originally  righteous,  or  he  was  not.  If  he  was  not,  then  time  was, 
when  he  was  not  '  The  Holy  One  of  God  ;'  and  possibly  he  never 
might  have  been  such,  no,  nor  righteous  at  all :  but  instead  of  that, 
as  ungodly,  guilty,  and  wretched  as  the  Devil  himself  is.  For  the 
best  creature  is  (Dr.  Taylor  grants)  alterable  ior  the  worse,  and  the 
best  when  corrupted  becomes  the  worst.  Again,  if  the  Son  of  God 
was  a  mere  creature,  and  as  such  made  without  righteousness  (which 
every  creature  must  be  according  to  Dr  Taylor)  then  he  was  not, 
could  not  be  at  first  as  righteous,  as  like  God  as  the  holy  angels  are 
now,  yea,  as  any  holy  man  on  earth  is.  But  if  these  suppositions 
are  shockingly  absurd,  if  the  Son  of  God  could  not  have  become  as 
bad  as  the  Devil,  if  he  never  was  unrighteous,  if  he  was  not  originally 
less  holy,  than  angels  and  men  are  now:  then  the  assertion,  "That 
righteousness  must  be  the  effect  of  a  creature's  antecedent  choice 
and  endeavour,"  falls  to  the  ground,   (p.  7.  9.) 

"But the  Hebrew  word  Jasher,  Dr.  Taylor  says  "does  not  gene- 
rally signify  a  moral  character."  This  is  one  of  the  numerous  criti- 
cal mistakes  in  this  gentleman's  books..  Of  the  more  than  150  texts 
in  which  Jasher,  or  the  substantive  Josher  occurs,  there  are  very  few 
which  do  not  confirm  our  interpretation  of  Eccles.  vii.  29.  "  But 
Jasher  is  applied  to  various  tilings*  nut  capable  of  moral  action."  It 
is,  and  what  then?  Many  of  these  applications  are  neither  for  us 
nor  against  us.  Some  make  strongly  for  us  ;  as  when  it  is  applied 
to  the  words  or  ways  of  God  and  man.  But  the  question  now  is, 
what  it  signifies,  when  applied  to  God  or  to  moral  ageiits,  and  that 
by  way  of  opposition  to  a  vicious  character  and  conduct  ?  Is  it  not  in 
the  text  before  us,  applied  to  man  as  a  moral  agent,  and  by  way  of 
opposition  to  a  corrupt  character  and  conduct?  No  man  can  deny  it. 
Either,  therefore,  prove,  That  Jasher,  when  opposed,  as  here,  to  a 
corrupt  conduct  and  character,  does  not  signify  righteous,  or  acknowr 
ledge  the  truth,  that  God  '  created  man  upright  or  righteous.'  (p.  11.) 

"  To  evade  the  argument  from  Eph.  iv.  24,  Dr.  Taylor  first  says, 
"  The  old  mai!  means  ar:  heathenish  life,"  and  then  says,  "  The  old 
and  new  man  do  not  signify  a  course  of  life."  What  then  do  they 
signify?  Why,  "The  old  man,"  says  he,  "relates  to  the  Gentile 
state  :  and  the  new  man  is  either  the  Christian  state,  or  the  Christian 
church,  body,  society."  But,  for  all  this,  he  says  again  a  page  or 
two  after,  "The  old  and  new  man,  and  the  new  man's  being 
renewed,  and  the  renewing  of  the  Ephesians  do  all  manifestly  refer 
to  their  Gentile  state  and  wicked  course  of  life,  from  which  they 
were  lately  converted."  (p.  13  ) 

"  When  then  the  Apostle  says,  (Rom.  vi.  6.)  '  Our  old  man  is  cru- 
cified with  Christ,'  is  it  the  Gentile  state  or  course  oj  life  which  was  so 
crucified  1     No  :  but  the  <  corrupt  nature,' '  the  body  of  sin,'  as  it  h 


TPiVKT  v.]  OIUGINAL   Sllf.  335 

termed  in  the  same  verse.  And  '  to  put  ofF  the  old  man'  is  (accord- 
ing to  St.  Paul)  '  to  crucify  this  with  its  aftections  and  desires.'  On 
the  other  hand,  To  put  on  the  new  man  is  to  cuidvate  the  divine 
principle,  which  is  formed  in  the  soul  of  every  believer,  by  the  Spirit 
of  Christ.  It  is  this  of  which  it  is  said,  1.  It  is  created;  and  in  re- 
gard to  it  we  are  said  to  be  '  created  unto  good  works.'  2.  It  is 
renewed  ;  for  it  is  indeed  no  other  than  original  righteousness 
restored.  3.  It  is  after  God,  after  his  image  and  likeness,  now 
stamped  afresh  on  the  soul.  4.  It  consists  in  righteousness  and  holi-i 
ness,  or  that  knowledge  which  comprehends  both.  (p.  14.) 

"  Again,  to  that  argument,  "  Either  man  at  first  loved  God,  or  he 
Avas  an  enemy  to  God,"  Dr,  Taylor  gives  only  this  slight  superficial 
answer,  "  Man  ;  ould  not  love  God  before  he  knew  him  :"  without 
vouchsafing  the  least  notice  of  the  arguments  which  prove,  that  man 
was  not  created  without  the  knowledge  of  God.  Let  him  attend  to 
those  proofs,  and  either  honestly  yield  to  their  force,  or  if  he  is  able, 
fairly  confute  them. 

"The  doctrine  of  original  sin  pre-supposes, 

"  2.  Adam's  being  the  federal  head  of  all  mankind.  Several 
proofs  of  this  having  been  given  already,  I  need  not  produce  more 
till  those  are  answered. 

"  II.  God  imputes  our  sins  or  the  'guilt  of  them  to  Christ.  He 
consented  to^  be  responsible  for  them,  to  suffer  the  punishment 
due  for  them.  This  sutficiently  appears  from  Isa.  liii.  which  con- 
tains a  summary  of  the  scripture  doctrine  upon  this  head.  '  He  hath 
borne  our  griefs  and  carried  our  sorrows.'  The  word  J^asa  {borne) 
signifies,  1.  To  take  up  somewhat,  as  on  one's  shoulders  ;  2.  To 
bear  or  carry  something  weighty,  as  a  porter  does  a  burden  ;  3.  To 
take  away:  and  in  all  these  senses  it  is  here  applied  to  the  Son  of 
God:  he  carried,  as  a  strong  man  does  a  heavy  burden  (the  clear, 
indisputable  sense  of  the  other  word,  Sabal)  our  sorrows;  the  suffer- 
ings of  various  kinds,  which  were  due  to  our  sins.  '  He  was 
wounded  for  our  transgressions,  and  bruised  for  our  iniquities.' 
Wounds  and  bruises  are  put  for  the  whole  of  his  sufferings  ;  as  his 
death  and  blood  frequently  are.  He  was  wounded  and  bruised,  not. 
for  sins  of  his  own ;  not  merely  to  show  God's  hatred  of  sin  ;  not 
chiefly,  to  give  us  a  pattern  of  patience :  but  for  our  sins,  as  the 
proper,  impulsive  cause.  Our  sins  were  the  procuring  cause  of  all 
his  sufferings.  His  sufferings  were  the  penal  effects  of  our  sins. 
<  The  chastisement  of  our  peace,'  the  punishment  necessary  to  pro- 
cure it,  was  laid  on  him,  freely  submitting  thereto  :  '  and  by  his 
stripes,'  (a  part  of  his  sufferings  again  put  for  the  whole,)  'we  are 
healed  :'  pardon,  sanctification,  and  final  salvation,  are  all  purchased 
and  bestowed  upon  us.  Every  chastisement  is  for  some  fault.  That 
laid  on  Christ  was  not  for  his  own,  but  ours;  and  was  needful  to  re- 
concile an  offended  Lawgiver,  and  offending  guilty  creatures  to  each 
other.  So  'the  Lord  laid  on  him  the  iniquity  of  us  all,'  that  is,  the 
punishment  due  to  our  iniquity,  (p.  17 — 20.) 

"  It  is  true,  as  Dr.  Taylor  says,  "  Sin  and  iniquity  often  signify  af 


336  THE   BOCTRINE  OF  [pART  V, 

fliction  or  suffering,"  But  why  1  Because  it  is  usual  for  a  cause  to 
give  denomination  to  its  effect.  And  so  the  consequences  of  sin  are 
called  by  the  same  name.  But  this  rather  hurts  Dr.  Taylor's  cause 
than  helps  it.  For  sufferings  could  with  no  propriety  be  called  sin, 
if  they  were  not  the  propei-  effects  of  it.  Man  ui  innocence  was 
liable  to  no  suffering  or  sorrow  ;  he  was  indeed  ti  ied  ;  but  not  by 
suffering.  Ail  sorrow  Avas  introduced  by  sin  ;  and  if  man  is  'born 
to  trouble,'  it  is  because  he  is  born  in  sin.  God  indeed  does  afflict 
his  children  for  their  good  ;  and  turns  even  death  into  a  blessing- 
Yet  as  it  is  the  effect  of  sin,  so  is  it  in  itself  an  enemy  to  all  mankind : 
nor  would  any  man  have  been  either  tried  or  corrected  by  affliction, 
had  it  not  been  for  sin.  (p.  21,  22.) 

"  'The  Lord's  laying  on  Christ  the  iniquity  of  us  all'  was  eminently 
typified  by  the  high-priest,  '  putting  all  the  iniquities  of  Israel  on 
the  scape-goat,'  who  then  carried  them  aicay.  "  But  the  goat,"  says 
Dr.  Taylor,  "  was  to  suft'er  nothing."  This  is  a  gross  mistake,  it 
was  a  sin-offering,  (ver.  5,)  and  as  such  was  to  '  bear  upon  him  all  the 
iniquities'  of  the  people  into  the  wilderness,  and  there  (as  the  Jewish 
doctors  unanimously  hold,)  to  suffer  a  violent  death,  by  way  of  pun- 
ishment,  instead  of  the  people,  for  their  sins  put  upon  him.  Yet  Dr. 
Taylor  says,  "  Here  was  no  imputation  of  sin."  No  !  What  is  the 
difference  between  imputing  sins,  and  putting  them  upon  him  ?  This 
is  just  of  a  piece  with  "  A  sin-offering  that  suffered  nothing."  A 
creature  "  turned  loose  into  a  land  the  properest  for  its  subsistence," 
Avhile  '  bearing  upon  him  all  the  iniquities  of  God's'  people  !"  (p.  23 
—25.) 

"  Thus  Christ  '  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law,  being 
made  a  curse  for  us.'  Dr.  Taylor  when  he  wrote  his  late  books, 
was  not  apprised  of  the  usual  scripture-meaning  of  this  awful  word 
curse.  It  is  often  put  to  signify,  the  legal  punishment  of  sin.  What 
the  law  of  God  threatens  against  transgressors,  or  the  threatening 
itself,  is  frequently  cafled  by  this  name.  What  signifies  then  his  tri- 
fling observation,  "  That  God  inflicted  no  curse  on  our  first  parents, 
Gen.  iii.  16.  18."  That  is,  he  did  not  say  in  so  many  words, 
"  Cursed  art  thou,  O  man,  or,  O  woman."  But  God's  <  cursing  the 
ground  for  man's  sake,'  was  really  a  curse  pronounced  against  him  ; 
and  what  the  Lord  said  to  the  woman  was  really  a  curse,  a  penalty 
legally  inflicted  on  her.  For  God  is  then  said  to  curse,  when  he 
either  threatens  to  punish,  or  actually  punishes  his  creatures  for  sin. 
See  Deut.  xxvii.  15,  &c.  chap,  xxviii.  16,  &c.  Jer.  xvii.  5.  Zech. 
y.  3.   (p.  39,  40.) 

"  To  conclude.  Either  we  must  aflow  the  impiaation  of  Adam's 
.sin,  whatever  difficulties  attend  it,  or  renounce  justification  by  Christ, 
and  salvation  through  the  merit  of  his  blood.  Accordingly  the  So- 
€inians  do  this.  Whether  Dr.  Taylor  does,  let  every  thinking  man 
judge,  after  having  weighed  what  he  writes,  particularly  at  p.  72,  73, 
of  his  Scripture-Doctrine.  "  The  worthiness  of  Christ  is  his  con 
summate  virtue.  It  is  virtue  that  carrieth  every  cause  in  heaven 
Virtue  is  the  only  price  which  purchaseth  every  thing  witli  God. 


PART  v.]  ORIGINAL  SIN.  33 7 

True  virtue,  or  the  right  exercise  of  reason,  is  true  worth,  and  the 
only  valuable  consideration,  the  only  power  which  prevails  with 
God."  These  passages  are  indeed  connected  with  others,  which 
carry  with  them  a  show  of  ascribing  honour  to  Christ  and  grace. 
But  the  fallacy  lies  open  to  every  careful,  intelligent,  unprejudiced 
reader.  He  ascribes  to  Christ  a  singular  xKorthiness  ;  but  it  is  no- 
thing more  than  a  superior  degree,  of  the  same  kind  of  worthiness 
which  belongs  to  every  virtuous  man.  He  talks  of  Christ's  consum- 
mate virtue^  or  his  obedience  to  God,  and  good-will  to  man.  And 
to  this  virtue  of  his,  as  imitated  by  us,  he  would  teach  us  to  ascribe 
our  acceptance  with  God :  which  is,  indeed,  to  ascribe  it  to  our- 
selves, or  to  our  own  virtue  ;  to  works  of  righteousness  done  by  us,  in 
direct  opposition  to  the  whole  tenor  of  the  gospel.  To  what  dan- 
j^erous  lengths  are  men  carried  by  an  ignorance  of  God,  as  infinitely 
iioly  and  just ;  by  a  fond  conceit  of  their  own  abilities,  and  a  resolved 
opposition  to  the  doctrine  of  original  sin  !  Rather  than  allow  this, 
they  renounce  Christ,  as  the  meritorious  procurer  of  salvation  for  sin- 
ners. They  may  seem  indeed  to  acknowledge  him  as  such,  and  talk 
of  "  Eternal  Ufe  as  given  by  God  through  his  Son."  But  all  this  is 
mere  show,  and  can  only  impose  on  the  ignorant  and  unwary.  The}'^ 
dare  not  profess  in  plain  terms,  that  Christ  has  merited  salvation  for 
any  :  neither  can  they  consistently  allow  this,  while  they  deny  origi- 
nal sin.   (p.  80,81.) 

"  Let  not  any  then  who  regard  their  everlasting  interests  entertain 
or  even  tamper  with  doctrines,  which  how  plausibly  soever  recom- 
mended, are  contrary  to  many  express  texts,  na)',  to  the  whole  tenor 
of  Scripture,  and  which  cannot  be  embraced  without  renouncing  an 
humble  dependance  on  Chiist,  and  rejecting  the  gospel-method  of 
salvation,  (p.  82.) 

"  God  grant  every  reader  of  this  plain  treatise  may  not  only  be 
convinced  of  the  truth  and  importance  of  the  scripture-doctrines 
maintained  therein,  but  invincibly  confirmed  in  his  attachments  to 
Them,  by  an  experimental  knowledge  of  their  happy  influence  on 
fiiith,  holiness,  and  comfort !  Then  shall  we  gladly  say,  We,  who 
are  made  sinners  by  the  disobedience  of  Adam,  are  made  righteous 
by  the  obedience  of  Christ.  His  righteousness  entitles  us  to  a  far 
better  inheritance  than  that  we  lost  in  Adam.  In  consequence  of 
being  justified  through  him,  we  shall  reign  in  life  with  him  :  unto 
whom,  with  God  the  Father,  and  the  sanctifying,  comforting  Spirit, 
be  ascribed  all  praise  for  ever  !"  (p.  83.) 


Vol.  9.— F  f 


338  THE   DOCTRINE   OF  [PART  VJ. 


PART    VI. 


The  Doctrine  of  Original  Sin  explained  and  vindicated. 

'^  The  phrase,  Original  Sin,  so  far  as  we  can  discover,  was  fir.«t 
used  in  the  fourth  century.  The  first  who  used  it  was  either  St. 
Chrysostom,  or  Hilary,  some  of  whose  words  are  these :  "  The 
Psalmist  says,  '  Behold  I  was  conceived  in  iniquities,  in  sins  did  my 
mother  conceive  me.'  He  acknowledges,  that  he  was  born  under 
original  sin,  and  the  law  of  sin."  Soon  after  Hilary's  time,  St.  Au- 
gustine and  other  Christian  writers  brought  it  into  common  use.  (p. 
2,  3.) 

"  The  scriptural  doctrine  of  original  sin  may  be  comprised  in  the 
following  propositions : 

"  I.  Man  was  originally  made  righteous  or  holy  : 

"  H.  That  original  righteousness  was  lost  by  the  first  sin  : 

"  HI.  Thereby  man  incurred  death  of  every  kind  :  for, 

"  IV.  Adam's  first  sin  was  the  sin  of  a  public  person,  one  whom 
God  had  appointed  to  represent  all  his  descendants  : 

"  V.  Hence  all  these  are  from  their  birth  children  of  wrath,  void 
of  all  righteousness,  and  propense  to  sin  of  all  sorts. 

"  1  add,  VI.  This  is  not  only  a  truth  agreeable  to  Scripture  and 
reason,  but  a  truth  of  the  utmost  importance,  and  one  to  which  the 
churches  of  Christ  from  the  beginning,  have  bore  a  clear  testimony. 

"  I.  Man  was  originally  made  righteous  or  holy  :  formed  with 
such  a  principle  of  love  and  obedience  to  his  Maker,  as  disposed  and 
enabled  him  to  perform  the  whole  of  his  duty  with  ease  and  plea- 
sure. This  has  been  proved  already.  And  this  wholly  overturns 
Dr.  Taylor's  fundamental  aphorism,  "Whatever  is  natural  is  neces- 
sary, and  what  is  necessary  is  not  sinful."  For  if  man  was  origi- 
nally righteous  or  holy,  we  may  argue  thus.  It  was  at  first  natural 
to  man  to  love  and  obey  his  Maker  :  yet  it  was  not  necessary  :  nei- 
ther as  necessanj  is  opposed  to  voluntary  or  free ;  (for  he  both  loved 
and  obeyed /ree/y  nnd  willingly)  nor,  as  necessary  rncans  unavoidable; 
(this  is  manifest  by  the  event ;)  no,  nor  as  necessary  is  opposed  to  re~ 
wardable.  For  had  he  continued  to  love  and  obey,  he  would  have 
been  rewarded  with  everlasting  happiness.  Therefore  that  assertion 
"whatever  is  natural  is  necessary,'''  is  palpably,  glaringly  false. 
Consequently,  what  is  natural  as  well  as  what  is  acquired,  may  be 
good  or  evil,  rewardable  or  punishable,   (p.  10.) 

"  H.  Man's  original  righteousness  was  lost  by  the  first  sin. 
Though  he  was  made  righteous,  he  was  not  made  immutable.  He 
was  free  to  stand  or  fall.  And  he  soon  fell,  and  lost  at  once  both 
the^favour  and  image  of  God.     This  fully  appears,  1,  From  the  ac- 


rART  VI.]  ORIGINAL   SlJf.  339 

count  which  Moses  gives  of  our  first  parents,  Gen.  lii.  where  we 
read,  (1.) '  The  eyes  of  them  both  were  opened,  and  they  knew  that 
they  were  naked  ;'  that  is,  they  were  conscious  of  guilt,  and  touched 
with  a  pungent  sense  of  their  folly  and  wickedness.  They  began 
to  find  their  nakedness  irksome  to  them,  and  to  reflect  on  it  with 
sinful  emotions  of  soul.  (2.)  Immediately  they  were  indisposed  for 
communion  with  God,  and  struck  with  such  a  dread  of  him  as  coukl 
not  consist  with  true  love,  ver.  8.  (3.)  When  questioned  by  God, 
how  do  they  prevaricate,  instead  of  confessing  their  sin,  and  humbly 
imploring  forgiveness  ]  Which  proves,  not  only  their  having  sinned, 
but  their  being  as  yet  wholly  impenitent.  (4.)  The  judgment  passed 
upon  them  was  a  proof  of  their  being  guilty  in  the  sight  of  God. 
Thus  was  man's  original  righteousness  lost.  Thus  did  he  fall  both 
from  the  favour  and  image  of  God.  (p.  14,  15.) 

^'  This  appears,  2.  From  the  guilt  which  inseparably  attends 
every  transgression  of  the  divine  law.  I  say,  every  transgression  ; 
because  every  sin  virtually  contains  all  sin.  For  '  whosoever  keepeth 
the  whole  law  and  offendeth  in  one  point,  he  is  guilty  of  all.'  Every 
single  offence  is  a  virtual  breach  of  all  the  commands  of  God. 
There  is  in  every  particular  sin,  the  principle  of  all  sin  ;  namely, 
the  contempt  of  that  sovereign  authority,  which  is  equally  stamped 
upon  every  command.  When,  therefore,  our  first  parents  ate  the 
forbidden  fruit,  they  not  only  violated  a  particular  precept,  but  the 
entire  law  of  God.  They  could  not  sin  in  one  instance,  without 
virtually  transgressing  the  whole  law  of  their  creation  :  which  being 
once  done,  their  title  to  God's  favour  and  their  original  righteousness 
were  both  lost.  (p.  16.) 

"  This  aprjiears,  3.  From  the  comprehensive  nature  and  aggrava- 
ting circumstances  of  the  first  transgression.  For  it  implied,  (1.) 
Unbelief.  Man  did  not  dare  to  break  the  divine  command  till  he 
was  brought  to  question  the  truth  of  the  divine  threatening.  (2.) 
Irreverence  of  God.  Reverence  is  a  mixture  of  love  and  fear.  And 
had  they  continued  in  their  first  love  and  filial  fear,  they  could  not 
have  broken  through  the  sole  command  of  God.  (3.)  Ingratitude. 
For  what  a  return  did  they  hereby  make  to  their  Creator  for  all  his 
benefits!  (4.)  Pride  and  ambition.  Affecting  to  be  'as  gods, 
knowing  good  and  evil.'  (5.)  Senstutlity.  The  Avoman  looked 
upon  the  fruit  with  an  irregular  appetite.  Here  the  conflict  between 
reason  and  sense  began.  To  talk  of  such  a  conflict  in  man  before 
he  fell,  is  to  represent  him  as  in  a  degree  sinful  and  guilty,  even 
while  innocent.  For  Conflict  implies  opposition.  And  an  opposi- 
tion of  appetite  to  reason  is  nothing  else  than  "a  repugnance  to  the 
law  of  God.  But  of  this  our  first  parents  were  no  way  guilty,  till 
their  innocence  was  impaired,  till  they  were  led  by  the  temptation  oi 
the  Devil  to  desire  the  forbidden  fruit.  (6.)  Robbery ;  for  the  fruit 
was  none  of  theirs.  They  had  no  manner  of  right  to  it.  There- 
fore their  taking  it  was  a  flat  robbery  of  God,  which  cannot  be  less 
criminal  than  robbing  our  fellow-creatures.     So  comprehensive  was 


310  THE   DOCTRINE   OF  [PART   VJ, 

the  nature,  so  aggravated  the  circumstances  of  man's  first  trans- 
gression, (p.  17,  18.) 

"  III.  Hereby  he  incurred  death  of  every  kind  ;  not  only  tempo- 
ral, but  also  spiritual  and  eternal.  By  losing  his  original  righteous- 
ness, he  became  not  only  mortal  as  to  his  body,  but  also  spiritually 
dead,  <  dead  to  God,'  *dead  in  sin  :'  void  of  that  principle  vi^hich  St. 
Paul  terms  'the  life  of  God,'  Eph.  iv.  18:  St.  John,  'Eternal  hfe 
abiding  in  us.'  1  John  jii.  15.  A  creature  formed  with  a  capacity 
of  knowing,  loving,  and  serving  God,  must  be  either  '  dead  in  sin,' 
or  '  alive  to  God.'  Adam,  in  his  primitive  state,  was  '  alive  t*^* 
God  ;'  but  after  he  had  sinned,  dead  in  sin,  as  well  as  dead  in  law. 
(p.  20.) 

"  But  Dr.  Taylor  is  sure  only  temporal  death  was  to  be  the  con- 
sequence of  his  disobedience.  '  For  death  is  the  loss  of  life,  and 
must  be  understood  according  to  the  nature  of  the  life  to  which  it  is 
opposed.'  Most  true  :  and  the  life  to  which  it  is  here  opposed,  the 
life  Adam  enjoyed  till  lost  by  sin,  was  not  only  bodily  life,  but  the 
principle  of  holiness  which  the  Scripture  terms  '  the  Me  of  God.' 
It  was  also  a  title  to  eternal  life.  All  this,  therefore,  he  lost  by  sin. 
And  that  justly  :  for  'death  is  the'  due  'wages  of  sin;'  death,  both 
temporal,  spiritual,  and  eternal,  (p.  21.) 

"  IV.  Adam's  first  sin  was  the  sin  of  a  public  person,  one  whom 
God  had  appointed  to  represent  all  his  descendants.  This  also  has 
been  proved.  In  one  sense,  indeed,  Adam's  sin  was  not  ours.  It 
was  not  our  personal  fault,  our  actual  transgression.  But  in  anothe/ 
sense  it  was  ours.  It  was  the  sin  of  our  common  representative. 
And  as  such,  St.  Paul  shows  it  is  imputed  to  us  and  all  his  descend- 
ants.    Hence,  (p.  25.) 

"V.  All  these  are  from  their  birth  'children  of  wrath,'  void  of 
all  righteousness,  and  propense  to  sin  of  all  sorts. 

"  lu  order  to  clear  and  confirm  this  proposition,  I  intend, 

"1.  To  consider  a  text  which  proves  Original  Sin  in  the  full  ex- 
tent of  it:   (p.  26.) 

"  2.  To  explain  some  other  texts  which  relate  either  to  the  guilt 
or  corruption  we  derive  from  our  first  parents  : 

"  3.  To  add  some  arguments  which  Dr.  Taylor  has  taken  no  no- 
tice of,  or  touched  but  very  slightly  : 
'     "  4.  To  answer  objections. 

"  And,  1 .  To  consider  that  text,  Eph.  ii.  3,  *  And  were  by  nature 
children  of  wrath,  even  as  others.'  In  the  beginning  of  the  chap- 
ter, St.  Paul  put?^  the  Ephesians  in  mind  of  what  God  had  done  for 
them.  This  led  him  to  observe,  what  they  had  been  before  their 
conversion  to  God.  They  had  been  '  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins,' 
but  were  now  '  quickened,'  made  alive  to  God.  They  had  '  walked 
according  to  the  prince  of  the  power  of  the  air,  the  spirit  that  work- 
eth  with  energy  in  the  children  of  disobedience.  Among  such,' 
saith  the  apostle,  '  v.e  all  had  our  conversation  in  times  past,'  the 
whole  time  before  our  conversion, « fulfilling  the  desires  of  the  flesh 


TAUT   VI.]  ORIGINAL  SIS'.  341 

and  of  the  mind,  and  were  by  nature  children  of  wrath,  even  as 
others.'  (p.  27.)     On  this  I  observe, 

*'  1.  The  persons  spoken  of  are  both  the  believing  Ephesians  and 
tlie  apostle  himself.  For  he  says  not,  ye  were,  speaking  in  the  se- 
cond person,  as  he  had  done,  ver.  1,  2,  but  we  icere,  plainly  with  a 
design  the  more  expressly  to  include  himself.  Indeed  had  he  still 
spoken  in  the  second  person,  yet  what  is  here  affirmed  would  have 
been  true  of  him  as  well  as  them.  But  for  the  sake  of  more  expli- 
citly including  himself,  he  chose  to  say,  loe  were :  you,  Ephesians, 
who  were  descended  of  heathen  parents,  and  /,  who  was  born  in 
the  visible  church. 

"  2.  The  tcrath  here  spoken  of  means  either  God's  displeasure  at 
sinners,  or  the  punishment,  which  he  threatens  and  inflicts  for  sin, 
(p.  28.) 

"  3.  '  Children  of  Avrath'  is  a  Hebraism,  and  denotes  persons 
worthy  of,  or  liable  to  wrath.  And  this  implies  the  being  sinners  ; 
seeing  sin  only  exposes  us  to  God's  displeasure,  and  the  dreadful 
effects  of  It. 

"  4.  This  charge  the  apostle  fixes  on  himself  and  them,  as  they 
had  been  before  their  conversion.  He  does  not  say,  we  are,  but 
*  we  were  children  of  wrath.'  (p.  29.) 

"  5.  He  speaks  of  himself  and  the  converted  Ephesians,  as  having 
been  so  equally  ^pith  others.  There  is  an  emphasis  on  the  words, 
even  as  others  :  even  as  the  stubborn  Jews,  and  idolatrous  Heathens: 
even  as  all  who  are  still  '  strangers  and  enemies  to  Christ.'  These 
are  still  '  children  of  wrath.'  But  whatever  difterence  there  is  be- 
t%veen  us  and  them,  we  were  once  what  they  are  now, 

"  6.  He  expressly  says,  '  we  were  children  of  wrath,  even  as 
others,  by  nature,'  or  from  our  birth.  He  does  not  say,  we  became 
so  by  education,  or  by  imitation,  or  by  custom  in  sinning.  But  to 
show  us  when  it  is  that  we  commence  sinners,  by  what  means  we 
become  <  children  of  wrath,'  whence  it  is  that  we  are  so  prone  to  evil 
from  our  infancy,  and  to  imitate  bad  rather  than  good  examples,  he 
says,  '  we  were  children  of  wrath  by  nature,'  we  were  born  fallen 
creatures.  We  came  into  the  world  sinners,  and  as  such  liable  to 
wrath,  in  consequence  of  the  fall  of  our  first  father. 

"  But  it  is  affirmed,  1.  That  "61/  nature  means  by  habit  or  custom.^' 
I  answer,  though  the  term  nature,  with  some  qualifying  expression 
annexed,  is  sometimes  taken  for  inveterate  custom,  yet  it.is  never  so 
taken  when  put  singly  without  any  such  qualifying  expression. 
AVhcn,  therefore,  the  Apostle  says  absolutely,  '  we  were  children  of 
wrath  by  nature,'  this,  according  to  the  constant  sense  of  the  word.s, 
nuist  mean,  we  were  so  from  our  birth,  (p.  31.) 

"  It  is  atTirmed,  2.  That  «  because  the  original  words  stands  thus^ 
r-y.vx  <pvfii  o^yr.q,  cldldren  by  nature  of  wrath  :  therefore  children  by 
nature  means  only  truly  and  really  children  of  wrath."  I  answer. 
The  consequence  is  good  for  nothing  :  for  let  the  words  stand  how 
they  Avill,  it  is  evident,  that  reKtu  <pv<rei,  are  children  by  birth,  or  such 
as  are  born  so,  in  distinction  from  those  who  become  such  afterwards 

Ff2 


342  THE    DOCTKINE    OP    '  [PAKT  VI. 

"  It  is  affirmccl,  3.  "  That  pvTsi,  hy  nature,  signifies  no  more  than 
truly  or  really. ^^  I  answer,  (1.)  It  is  not  allowed,  that  any  good 
Greek  writers  ever  use  the  word  in  this  sense.  (2.)  Whatever 
others  do,  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  always  use  it  in  another 
sense.  So  Gal.  ii.  15,  «  We  who  are  Jews  by  nature,'  <pv<rei  'lalatei. 
That  is,  fVe  who  are  born  Jews,  in  contradistinction  to  Proselytes, 
Gal.  iv.  8,  '  Ye  did  service  to  them  which  by  nature  are  no  gods ;' 
fte  ^vTu  Hs-i  ^eoii,  persons  or  things  which  are  partakers  of  no  divine 
nature.  Rom.  ii.  14,  'The  Gentiles  do  by  nature  the  things  con-, 
tained  in  the  lav/  ;'  that  is,  by  their  own  natural  powers,  without  a 
written  law.  Neither  here  nor  any  where  else  does  the  word  ^vs-ei 
signify  no  more  than  rea%  or  truly,  (p.  S2.) 

"  It  remains  then,  that  the  word  which  we  render  by  nature,  does 
really  so  signify. 

"  And  yet  it  is  allowed,  we  are  not  so  guilty  by  nature,  as  a  course 
of  actual  sin  afterward  makes  us.  But  we  are  antecedent  to  that 
course  children  of  wrath,  liable  to  some  degree  of  wrath  and  punish- 
ment. Here  then  from  a  plain  text,  taken  in  its  obvious  sense,  we 
have  a  clear  evidence,  both  of  what  divines  term  original  sin  imputed, 
and  of  original  sin  inherent.  The  former  is,  the  sin  of  Adam  so  far 
reckoned  ours,  as  to  constitute  us  in  some  degree  guilty  :  the  latter, 
a  want  of  original  righteousness,  and  corruption  of  nature  ;  whence 
it  is,  that  from  our  infancy  we  are  averse  to  what  is  good,  and  pre- 
pense to  what  is  evil.  (p.  33.) 

"  I  am,  2.  To  explain  some  other  texts  which  relate  either  to  th*^ 
guilt  or  the  corruption  which  we  derive  from  our  first  parents. 

*«  Gen.  v.  3.  Here  the  image  of  Adam  in  which  he  begat  a  son  after 
his  fall,  stands  opposed  to  the  image  of  God,  in  which  man  was 
at  first  created.  Moses  had  said,  ver.  1 ,  '  In  the  day  that  God  created 
man,  in  the  likeness  of  God  made  he  him.'  In  this,  speaking  oi' 
Adam,  as  he  was  after  the  fall,  he  does  not  say,  he  begat  a  son  in 
the  likeness  of  God  ;  but  he  '  begat  a  son  in  his  own  likeness  after 
his  image.'*  Now  this  must  refer  to  Adam,  either  as  a  man  ;  or  as  a 
good  man ;  or  as  a  mortal,  siniul  man.  But  it  could  not  refer  to 
him  merely  as  a  man.  The  inspired  writer  could  not  design  to  in- 
form us,  that  Adam  begat  a  man,  not  a  hon,  or  a  horse.  It  could 
not  well  refer  to  him  as  a  good  man.  Fot  it  is  not  said,  Adam  begat 
a  son,  who  at  length  became  pious  like  himself;  but  he  begat  a  son 
in  his  own  likeness.  It  refers  to  him  therefore  as  a  mortal,  sinful 
man ;  giving  us  to  know,  that  the  mortality  and  corruption,  con- 
tracted by  ;he  fall,  descended  from  Adam  to  his  son  :  Adam  a  .sin- 
ner, begat  a  sinner  like  himself.  And  if  Seth  was  thus  a  sinner  by 
nature,  so  is  every  other  descendant  of  Adam.  (p.  35,  36.) 

"  Dr.  Taylor  takes  no  notice  of  the  antithesis  between  the  like- 
ness of  God,  ver.  1,  and  the  likeness  of  Adam,  ver.  3.  On  the 
other  hand,  he  speaks  of  these  two  as  one  :  as  if  Seth  had  been 
born  in  the  very  same  image  of  God,  wherein  Adam  was  made. 
But  this  cannot  be  admitted  :  because  Adam  had  now  lost  his  origi- 


PART  VI.]  OHIGINAL  SIS.  34S 

nal  righteousness.     It  must,  therefore,  be  the  likeness  of  fallen,  cor- 
rupted Adam  which  is  here  intended. 

"  Gen.  vi.  5,  "  And  God  saw  that  the  wickedness  of  man  was 
great  in  the  earth,  and  that  every  imagination  of  the  thoughts  of  his 
heart  was  only  evil  continually.'  Here  Moses  having  observed,  as 
the  cause  of  the  flood,  that  *  God  saw  that  the  wickedness  of  man 
was  great,*  to  account  for  this  general  wickedness,  acds,  '  Every 
imagination  of  the  thoughts  of  his  heart  was  evil,'  yea,  was  '  only 
evil,'  and  that  '  continually.'  The  heart  of  man  is  here  put  for  his 
soul.  This  God  had  formed  with  a  marvellous  thinking  power- 
But  so  is  his  soul  debased  that  every  imagination,  figment,  formation 
of  the  thoughts  of  it,  is  evil,  only  evil,  continually  evil.  Whatever  it 
forms  within  itself,  as  a  thinking  power,  is  an  evil  formation.  This 
Moses  spoke  of  the  Antediluvians  ;  but  we  cannot- confine  it  to  them. 
If  all  their  actual  wickedness  sprung  from  the  evil  formations  of 
their  corrupt  heart :  and  if  consequently  they  were  sinners  from  the 
birth,  so  are  all  others  likewise,  (p.  37.) 

"  Gen.  viii.  21,  '  I  will  not  again  curse  the  ground  any  more  for 
man's  sake  ;  for  the  imagination  of  man's  heart  is  evil  from  his 
youth  ;  neither  will  I  again  smite  any  more  every  living  thing.'  I 
will  not  be  provoked  to  this  by  the  wickedness  of  mankind  ;  for 
they  are  inclined  to  sin  from  their  childhood.  Was  I  therefore  to 
do  this  as  often  as  they  deserve,  I  must  be  continually  destroying  the 
earth.  The  word  iy',  imagination,  (as  was  observed  before)  includes 
the  thoughts,  affections,  inclinations,  with  every  thing  which  the  soul, 
as  a  thinking  being,  forges  and  frames  within  itself  And  the  word 
we  render  youth,  includes  childhood  and  infancy,  the  earliest  age  of 
man  ;  the  whole  time  from  his  birth  ;  (or  as  others  affirm)  from  his 
formation  in  the  womb. 

"  Indeed  Dr.  Taylor  would  translate  the  texts,  Mthough  the  ima- 
gination of  man^  s  heart  should  be  evil  from  his  youth.  But,  1.  Though 
the  particle  'd  sometimes  signifies  although,  yet  for  is  its  common 
meaning.  And  we  are  not  to  recede  from  the  usual  signification  of 
a  word  without  any  necessity.  2.  If  we  read  although,  it  will  not 
at  all  invalidate  our  proof.  For  still  the  plain  meaning  of  the  word* 
would  be,  I  will  not  send  another  general  flood,  although  every 
figment  or  formation  of  the  heart  of  every  man  is  evil  from  his  earliest 
Infancy. 

"  Job  v.  6,  7,  <  Although  affliction  cometh  not  forth  of  the  dust, 
yet  man  is  born  to  trouble  as  the  sparks  fly  upwards.'  The  worcl 
which  is  here  rendered  affliction,  sometimes  signifies  iniquity.  For 
what  reason  but  to  show  that  these  two,  sin  and  affliction,  are  insepa- 
rable ]  Sin  is  the  cause  of  affliction,  and  affliction,  of  whatever 
kind,  is  the  genuine  effect  of  sin.  Indeed  it  is  incompatible  with 
the  justice  and  mercy  of  God,  to  appoint  afflictions  of  any  kind  for 
the  innocent.  If  Christ  suffered,  it  was  because  the  sins  of  others 
were  imputed  to  him.  If  then  every  one  of  the  posterity  of  Adam 
♦  is  born  to  trouble,'  it  must  be,  because  he  is  born  a  sinner,  for  man 
was  not  originally  made  to  suffer.     Nor  while  he  preserved  his  in- 


314  THE   DOCTRINE   OF  [PART  VI. 

iioceiiGC  was  he  liable  to  suffering  of  any  kind.  Are  tlie  angels,  or 
any  pure,  sinless  creatures  liable  to  any  sorrow  or  afliiction  1  Surely 
not.  But  every  child  of  Adam  is.  And  it  is  iu  consequence  ol' 
his  sin,  that  the  present  htie  of  man  is  short  and  afflictive  :  of  which 
the  very  Heathens  are  deeply  sensible.  They  also  saw,  that  '  great 
travail  is  created  for  every  man,  and  a  heavy  yoke  is  upon  the  sons 
of  Adam,  from  the  day  that  they  go  out  of  their  mother^s  womb,  till 
the  day  they  return  to  the  mother  of  all  things.'  (p.  40.) 

"  Job  xi.  12,  '  Vain  man  would  be  wise,  though  man  be  born  like 
a  wild  ass's  colt;'  in  the  original,  though  man  be  born  (will  be  born 
in  every  age)  thexolt  of  a  wild  ass.  Dr.  Taylor  owns,  '  VVe  are  born 
quite  ignorant.'  But  this  is  far  from  reaching  the  plain  import  of 
the  text,  in  which  man,  as  born  into  the  world,  is  compared  to  an 
animal  most  remartcably  stupid  and  intractable.  And  such  all  the 
sons  of  Adam  naturally  are,  particularly  with  regard  to  the  things 
of  God  ;  from  their  infancy  slow  to  learn  what  is  good,  though 
-impetuously  propense  to  learn  and  practise  what  is  evil,  (p,  43,  44.) 

"  Job  xiv.  4,  and  xv.  14.  I  join  these,  because  the  latter  confirms 
the  former,  '  Who  can  bring  a  clean  thing,'  or  person,  '  out  of  an 
unclean'?  Not  one.'  This  is  express.  Job  had  been  reflecting  on 
the  sorrowful,  uncertain,  imperfect  state  of  all  Adam's  children  in 
the  present  world,  ver.  1,  2,  3.  Then  he  carries  his  thoughts  to  the 
spring  of  sucii  a  state,  the  original  corruption  of  man.  IVho^  what 
creature,  can  make  an  innocent  righteous  person  proceed  from  a 
parent  defiled  by  sin  ]  JVoi  one.  Through  the  whole  Scripture  wc 
may  observe,  5i?i  is  described  as  tmc/cannes5,  and  a  sinner  as  an  unclean 
thing.  On  the  contrary,  holiness  is  expressed  by  cleanness  of  heart 
and  hands,  and  the  righteous  man  is  described  as  clean.  Agreeabh 
to  which  the  text  asserts  the  natural  impossibility  of  any  man's  being 
born  clean,  guiltless,  and  sinless, because  he  proceeds  from  them  who 
are  unclean  ;  guilty  and  defiled  with  sin. 

"The  Septuagint  translate  the  text,  ff'ho  shall  be  clean  from  filth  ? 
JS^ot  one  :  even  though  his  life  on  earth  be  a  single  day.  And  this 
rendering,  though  not  according  to  the  Hebrew,  is  followed  by  all 
the  fathers  :  and  shows  what  was  the  general  belief  of  the  Jews, 
before  Christ  came  into  the  world. 

"  But  since  the  heavens  and  stars  are  represented  as  not  clean; 
compared  to  God,  may  not  man  also  be  here  termed  unclean,  only 
as  compared  with  himi"  I  answer,  1.  The  heavens  are  manifestly 
compared  with  God  ;  but  man  is  not,  in  either  of  these  texts.  He 
is  here  described,  not  as  he  is  in  comparison  of  God,  but  as  he  is 
absolutely  in  himself.  2.  When  the  heavens  and  man  are  mentioned 
in  the  same  text,  and  man  is  set  forth  as  unclean,  his  uncleanncss  is 
expressed  by  his  being  unrighteous ;  and  that  always  means  guilty  or 
sinful.  Nor  indeed  is  the  innocent  frailty  of  mankind  ever  in  Scrip- 
tare  termed  uncleanness.  (p.  45,  46.) 

"  Psalm  li,  5,  '  Behold,  I  was  shapen  in  iniquity,  and  in  sin  di^l 
my  mother  conceive  me.'  The  Psalmist  here  confesses,  bewails, 
and  condemns  himself  for  his  natural  corruption  as  that  which  prin£ 


PAft'T-Vt.]  ORIOINAt  8IN.  Sib 

cipally  gave  birth  to  the  horrid  sins  with  which  he  had  been  overtakenk 
Behold  !  He  prefixes  this,  to  render  his  confession  the  more  remark- 
able, and  to  show  the  importance  of  the  truth  here  declared  :  /  was 
shapen  :  this  passive  verb  denotes  somewhat  in  which  neither  David 
nor  his  parents  had  any  active  concern  :  in  or  with  iniquity,  and  in 
or  with  sin  did  my  mother  conceive  me.  The  word  which  we  ren- 
der conceive,  signifies  properly  to  warm,  or  to  cherish  by  warmth. 
It  does  not  therefore  so  directly  refer  to  the  act  of  conceiving,  as  to 
the  cherishing  what  is  conceived,  till  the  time  of  its  birth.  But  either 
way  the  proof  is  equally  strong,  for  the  corruption  of  mankind  from 
their  fii-st  existence,  (p.  47,  48.) 

"  Psalm  Iviii.  3,  4,  '  The  wicked  are  estranged  from  the  womb  ; 
they  go  astray  as  soon  as  they  are  born,  speaking  lies.'  '  They  are 
estranged  from  the  womb.'  Strangers  are  averse  to  true,  practical 
religion,  from  the  birth.  '  They  go  astray  as  soon  as  they  are  born, 
speaking  lies.'  Not  that  they  actually  speak  lies  as  soon  as  they  are 
born.  But  they  naturally  incline  that  way,  and  discover  that  ift- 
clination  as  early  as  is  possible,  (p.  51,  52.) 

"  Prov.  xxii.  15,  '  Foolishness  is  bound  in  the  heart  of  a  child ; 
but  the  rod  of  correction  shall  drive  it  far  from  him.  Chap.  xxix. 
15,  '  The  rod  and  reproof  give  wisdom  :  but  a  child  left  to  himself 
bringeth  his  mother  to  shame.'  These  passages  put  together  are  a 
plain  testimony  of  the  inbred  corruption  of  young  children.  Foolish- 
ness, in  the  former,  is  not  barely  appetite,  or  a  want  of  the  knowledge 
attainable  by  instruction.'  Neither  of  these  deserve  that  sharp  cor- 
rection. But  it  is  an  indisposedness  to  what  is  good,  and  a  strong 
propensity  to  evil.  This  foolishness  is  bound  in  the  heart  of  a  child; 
it  is  rooted  in  his  inmost  nature.  It  is  as  it  were  fastened  to  him  by 
strong  cords  ;  so  the  original  word  signifies.  From  this  corruption 
of  heart  in  every  child  it  is,  that  the  rod  of  correction  is  necessary  to 
give  him  wisdom  ;  hence  it  is  that  a  child  left  to  himself,  without  cor- 
rection, brings  his  mother  to  shame.  If  a  child  were  born  equally 
inclined  to  virtue  and  vice,  why  should  the  wise  man  speak  of  fool- 
ishness or  wickedness,  as  fastened  so  closely  to  his  heart  1  Afnd 
why  should  the  rod  and  reproof  be  so  necessary  for  him  1  These 
texts  therefore  are  another  clear  proof  of  the  corruption  of  human 
nature. 

^'Matt.  XV.  18,  19.  Mark  vii.  20—23,  'Those  things  wliich  pro- 
ceed out  of  the  moath,  come  from  the  heart,  and  they  defile  the 
man.  For  from  within  out  of  the  heart,  proceed  evil  thoughts, 
adulteries,  murders — all  these  things  come  from  within,  and  defile  the 
man.'  Our  Lord  here  teaches,  that  all  evil  thoughts,  words,  and 
actions,  of  every  kind,  tlow  out  of  the  heart,  the  soul  of  man,  as 
being  now  averse  to  all  good,  and  inclined  to  all  evil.   (p.  55,  56.) 

"  Rom.  V.  12 — 19.  Let  the  reader  please  to  read  the  whole  pas- 
sage very  carefully.  The  apostle  here  discourses  of  Adam  and 
Christ  as  two  representatives  or  public  persons,  comparing  the  sin 
uf  the  one,  with  the  righteousness  of  the  other,  (p.  66.) 


S46  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  [PART   Vh 

<*  On  this  I  observe,  1.  The  one  man  spoken  of  throughout,  it; 
Adam,  the  common  head  of  mankind.  And  to  him  (not  to  the 
Devil  or  Eve)  the  apostle  describes  the  introduction  of  sin  and  death. 
The  Devil  was  the  first  sinner,  and  Eve  seduced  by  him,  sinned  be- 
fore her  husband.  Yet  the  apostle  saith, '  By  one  man  sin  entered 
into  the  world;'  through  the  offence  of  one,  many  are  dead  ;  the 
judgment  was  by  o^ie  to  condemnation  ;  death  reigned  by  one.^  'By 
the  offence  of  one,  judgment  came  upon  all  men;'  '  by  one  mans  dis- 
obedience many  were  made  sinners.'  Now  why  should  the  apostle 
lay  all  this  on  Adam,  whose  sin  was  posterior  both  to  the  Devil's  and 
Eve's :  if  Adam  was  not  appointed  by  God,  the  federal  head  of 
mankind  1  In  regard  to  which  the  apostle  points  at  higi  singly,  as 
the  type  .or  figure  of  him  that  was  to  come.  According  to  Dr.  Taylor's 
doctrine,  he  should  rather  have  said.  By  the  Devil  sin  entered  into  the 
world ;  or,  through  the  disobedience  of  Eve  many  were  made  sinners. 
But  instead  of  this  he  fixes  on  our  first  father  alone,  as  bringing  sin 
and  death  on  all  his  posterity,  (p.  67.) 

"  2.  The  sin,  transgression,  offence,  disobedience,  here  spoken  of, 
was  Adam's  eating  the  forbidden  fruit.  It  is  remarkable,  that  as  the 
apostle  throughout  his  discourse,  arraigns  one  man  only,  so  he  ascribes 
all  the  mischief  done,  to  one  single  offence  of  that  one  man.  And 
as  he  then  stood  in  that  special  relation  of  federal,  as  well  as  na- 
tural head  to  his  descendants,  so  upon  his  committing  that  one  sinr 
this  special  relation  ceased. 

?  "3.  The  all,  ver.  13.  18,  and  the  many,  ver.  15.  19,  are  all  the 
natural  descendants  of  Adam;  equivalent  with  the  tcorld,  ver.  13, 
which  means,  the  inhabitants  of  it.  (p.  69.) 

"  4.  The  effects  of  Adam's  sin  on  his  descendants,  the  apostle  re- 
duces to  two  heads,  sin  and  death.  '  By  one  man  sin  entered  into 
the  world,  and  death  by  sin;  and  so  death  passed  on  all  men,  for 
that  all  have  sinned.'  Sin  sometimes  means  punishment ;  but  not 
here :  sin  and  death  are  here  plainly  distinguished.  The  common 
translation  is  therefore  right,  and  gives  us  the  true  meaning  of  the 
■words.  *  Death  passed  upon  all  men,  for  that  all  have  sinned,' 
namely,  in  or  with  their  first  father.  And  this  agrees  with  the  con- 
text, the  purport  of  which  is,  that  all  have  sinned  and  are  therefore 
liable  to  the  death  originally  threatened,  which  is  evident  from  this, 
that  '  until  the  law,  sin  was  in  the  world  :'  in  the  ages  that  preceded 
the  law  of  Moses,  all  men  were  sinners  in  the  sight  of  God.  '  But 
sin  is  not  imputed,  whore  there  is  no  law  :'  none  can  be  sinners  in 
the  sight  of  God,  if  they  are  not  transgressors  of  some  law,  for  the 
transgressing  of  which  they  are  reputed  guilty.  '  Nevertheless  death 
reigned'  all  the  time  ^from  Adam  to  Moses,'  over  all  mankind.  Now 
if  none  is  liable  to  death,  but  for  sin:  if  'sin  is  not  imputed  where 
there  is  no  law;'  and  if  notwithstanding  this,  all  mankind  in  all  ages 
have  died;  infants  themselves,  who  cannot  actually  sin,  not  excepted: 
it  is  undeniable,  that  guilt  is  imputed  to  all  for  the  sin  of  Adam.  Why 
else  are  they  liable  to  that  which  is  inflicted  on  none  but  for  sinl 

'*  This  is  the  purport  of  the  apostle's  arguing,   ver.  13,13.14, 


PART  VI.j  ORIGINAL   SIN.  34t 

which  having  led  him  to  mention  Adam  as  a  figure  of  Christ,  he 
then  draws  a  parallel  between  them.  The  substance  of  it  is  this ; 
as  through  the  'offence  of  Adam  many  are  dead,'  as  *by  the  disobe- 
dience' of  him  *many  are  made  sinners ;'  so  through  the  righteous- 
ness or  'obedience  of  Christ,  many  are  made  righteous.'  But  how 
are  many  dead,  or  made  sinners  through  the  disobedience  of  Adam  1 
His  first  sin  so  far  affects  all  his  descendants  as  to  constitute  them 
guilty,  or  liable  to  all  that  death  which  was  contained  in  the  original 
threatening,  (p.  72.) 

"  But  Dr.  Taylor  avers, '  To  be  made  sinners  means  only  to  be 
subjected  to  temporal  death.' 

*'  1  answer,  1.  Whatever  it  means,  the  disobedience  of  Adam  had 
a  proper,  casual  influence  upon  it;  just  as  the  obedience  of  Christ 
has  upon  our  being  made  righteous. 

"  2.  What  to  be  made  sinners  means,  must  be  learned  from  the  op' 
posite  to  it,  in  the  latter  part  of  the  verse.  Now  allowing  the  apostle 
to  be  his  own  interpreter,  being  made  righteous  is  the  same  with  jus- 
tljicalion.  (ver.  16.)  Of  this  he  had  treated  largely  before.  And 
through  the  whole  of  his  discourse,  to  be  justified,  is,  to  be  acquitted 
from  guilt,  and  accepted  of  God  as  righteous.  Consequently,  to  be 
made  sinners  is  to  be  condemned  of  God,  or  to  be  children  of  wrath, 
und  that  on  account  of  Adam's  sin.  (p.  73.) 

"1  Cor.  XV.  21,  22,  'By  man  came  death:  in  Adam  all  die.' 
Let  the  reader  please  to  bear  in  mind  the  whole  of  the  two  verses 
and  the  context.  By  man  in  the  21st  verse  is  meant  Adam.  The 
all  spoken  of  are  all  his  natural  descendants.  These  all  die ;  that 
is,  as  his  descendants,  are  liable  to  death,  yea,  to  death  everlasting. 
That  this  is  the  meaning,  appears  hence  :  that  the  being  made  alive, 
to  which  this  dying  stands  opposed,  is  not  a  mere  recovery  of  life, 
hut  a  blessed  resurreciion  to  a  glorious  immortality.  Hence,  I  ob- 
serve, 1.  Man  was  originally  immortal  as  well  as  righteous.  In  his 
primitive  state,  he  was  not  hable  to  death.  2.  Death  is  constantly 
ascribed  to  sin,  as  the  sole  and  proper  cause  of  it.  As  it  was 
threatened  only  for  sin,  so  the  sentence  was  not  pronounced  till 
after  man  had  sinned.  3.  All  men  are  mortal  from  their  birth.  As 
soon  as  they  begin  to  live,  they  are  liable  to  death,  the  punishment 
denounced  against  sin,  and  sin  only.  4.  This  is  the  genuine  effect 
of  the  first  sin  of  our  first  father.  The  apostle  does  not  attribute  it 
to  the  Devil ;  neither  does  he  say,  in  Mam  and  Eve  all  die.  But 
here  also  he  mentions  Adam  sin2;ly.  Him  he  speaks  of  as  a  figure, 
of  Christ,  ver.  45.  47,  48.  And  here  as  the  sole  author  of  death  to 
all  his  natural  descendants.  In  Adam,  or  on  account  of  his  fall,  all 
of  mankind,  in  every  age,  die.  Consequently,  in  him  all  sinned. 
With  him  all  fell  in  his  first  transgression.  That  they  are  all  born 
liable  to  the  legal  punishment  of  sin,  proves  him  the  federal  as  well 
as  natural  head  of  mankind :  whose  sin  is  so  far  imputed  to  all 
men,  that  they  arc  born  '  children  of  wrath,'  and  liable  to  death- 
(p.  74—76.) 
^'Thus  have  I  considered  a  large  number  of  texts,  which  testify 


348  THE   BOCTBINE    OF  [PART    VI. 

of  original  sin,  imputed  and  inhei'ent.  Some  are  more  express  than 
others ;  of  which  kind  are  Job  xiv.  4.;  Psalm  li.  5.  Ivi.  3.;  Rom.  v. 
12,  &c.  1  Cor.rXV.  22.;  Eph.  ii.  3.  That  in  Ephesians  presents  us 
with  a  direct  proof  of  the  entire  doctrine.  Those  in  Romans  and 
Corinthians  relate  directly  to  original  sin  imputed,  and  are  but  con- 
sequential proofs  of  original  corruption.  The  rest  refer  particularly 
to  this,  and  are  but  consequential  proofs  of  original  sin  imputed. 

"  And  as  this  doctrine  stands  impregnable  on  the  basis  of  Scrip- 
lure,  so  it  is  perfectly  agreeable  to  sound  reason ;  as  may  appear 
from  a  few  plain  arguments  which  confirm  this  Scripture  doctrine. 
(p.  79.) 

"1.  If  the  first  man  was  by  God's  appointment,  as  has  been  shown, 
the  federal  head  of  all  his  descendants ;  it  follows,  that  when  Adam 
sinned  and  fell,  they  all  sinned  in  him  and  fell  with  him.  And  if 
they  did,  they  must  come  into  the  world  both  guilty  and  unclean. 

"  But  we  had  no  hand  in  Adam's  sin,  and  therefore  cannot  be  guilty 
on  account  of  it." 

"This, —  We  had  no  hand  in  it,  is  ambiguous.  It  means  either/', 
•  We  did  not  actually  join  therein  :'  which  no  one  denies  :  or,  '  We 
were  wholly  unconcerned  in  it :'  the  contrary  to  which  has  been  fully 
proved. 

"  2.  Since  Adam's  posterity  are  born  liable  to  death,  which  is  the 
due  wages  of  sin,  it  follows,  that  they  are  born  sinners.  No  art  can 
set  aside  the  consequence. 

"  3.  Either  Christ  is  the  Saviour  of  infants,  or  he  is  not.  If  he 
is  not,  how  is  he  '  the  Saviour  of  all  men  V  But  if  he  is,  then  in- 
fants are  sinners.  For  he  suffered  death  for  sinners  only.  He 
'  came  to  seek  and  save  only  that  which  was  lost ;'  to  '  save  his  peo- 
ple from  their  sins.'  It  follows  that  infants  are  sinners  ;  that  they  are 
lost,  and  without  Christ  are  undone  for  ever. 

"  4.  The  consequences  of  the  contrary  opinion  are  shockingly 
absurd. 

"  (1.)  If  original  sin  is  not,  either  death  is  not  the  wages  of  sin,  or 
there,  is  punishment  without  guilt :  God  punishes  innocent,  guiltless 
creatures.  To  suppose  which  is  to  impute  iniquity  to  the  Most  Holy, 
(p.  84.) 

"  (2.)  If  we  are  not  sinners  by  nature,  there  are  sinful  actions 
without  a  principle,  fruit  growing  without  a  root.  '  No  :  men  con- 
tract sinful  habits  by  degrees,  and  then  commence  sinners.'  But 
whence  is  it  that  they  contract  those  habits  so  easily  and  speedily  1 
Whence  is  it,  that  as  soon  as  ever  we  discover  reason  we  discover 
sinful  dispositions  ?  The  early  discoveries  of  reason,  prove  a  prin- 
ciple of  reason  planted  in  our  nature.  In  like  manner  the  early  dis- 
coveries of  sinful  dispositions,  prove  those  dispositions  planted  there- 
in, (p.  85.) 

"  (3.)  If  we  were  not  ruined  by  the  first  Adam,  neither  are  we  re- 
covered by  the  second,  if  the  sin  of  Adam  was  not  imputed  to  us, 
neither  is  the  righteousness  of  Christ. 

"  (4.)  If  we  do  not  derive  a  corrupt  nature  from  Adam,  we  do  not 
derive  a  new  nature  from  Christ. 


TXRT  VI.]  OKIGHNAL  SIN.  349 

"  (5.)  A  denial  of  original  sin  not  only  renders  baptism  needless 
with  regard  to  infants,  but  represents  a  great  part  of  mankind  as  hav- 
ing no  need  of  Christ,  or  the  grace  of  the  new  covenant.  I  now 
speak  of  infants  in  particular,  who,  if  not  guilty  bdbre  God,  no  more 
need  the  merits  and  grace  of  the  second  Adam  than  the  brutes  them- 
selves. 

'*  Lastly.  A  denial  of  original  sin  contradicts  the  main  design  of 
the  gospel,  which  is  to  humble  vain  man,  and  to  ascribe  to  God's /ree 
grace,  not  man's  free  will,  the  whole  of  his  salvation.  Nor  indeed 
can  we  let  this  doctrine  go  without  giving  up  at  the  same  time  the 
greatest  part,  if  not  all,  of  the  essential  articles  of  the  Christian  faith. 
If  we  give  up  this,  we  cannot  defend  either  justification  by  the  merits 
of  Christ,' or  the  renewal  of  our  natures  by  his  Spirit.  Dr.  Taylor's 
book  is  not  therefore  subversive  of  a  particular  branch,  but  of  the 
whole  scheme  of  Christianity. 

"  VI.  The  doctrine  therefore  of  original  sin  is  not  only  a  truth 
agreeable  to  Scripture  and  reason,  but  a  truth  of  the  utmost  import- 
ance. And  it  is  a  truth  to  which  the  churches  of  Ciirist  from  the  be- 
ginning have  borne  a  clear  testimony. 

"Few  truths,  if  any,  are  more  necessary  to  be  known,  believed, 
and  thoroughly  considered.  For  if  we  are  not  acquainted  with  this, 
we  do  not  know  ourselves.  And  if  we  do  not  know  ourselves,  we 
cannot  rightly  Know  Christ  and  the  grace  of  God.  And  on  this 
knowledge  of  Christ  and  the  grace  of  God  depends  the  whole  of 
our  salvation.  Augustine  therefore  well  remarks,  '  Christianity  lies 
properly  in  the  knowledge  of  what  concerns  Adam  and  Christ.'  For 
certainly  if  we  do  not  know  Christ,  we  know  nothing  to  any  pur- 
pose. And  we  cannot  know  Christ,  without  some  knowledge  of 
what  relates  to  Adam,  who  was  '  the  figure  of  him  that  was  to  come.' 
"  But  if  this  doctrine  is  so  important,  why  is  so  little  said  of  it  in 
Scripture,  and  in  the  wi'hings  of  the  ancients  ?" 

"  This  is  a  grand  mistake.  We  totally  deny  that  the  Scripture  says 
little  of  it.  Dr.  Taylor  indeed  affirms,  '  There  are  but  five  passages 
of  Scripture  that  plainly  relate  to  the  effects  of  Adam's  fall.'  Not 
so.  Many  scriptures,  as  has  been  shown,  plainly  and  directly  teach 
us  this  doctrine.  And  many  others  deliver  that  from  which  it  may 
be  rationally  and  easily  deduced.  Indeed  the  whole  doctrine  of  sal- 
vation by  Christ  and  divine  grace  implies  this ;  and  each  of  its  main 
branches,  justification  and  regeneration,  direcdy  leads  to  it.  So  does 
the  doctrine  of  man's  original  righteousness,  than  which  nothing  is 
more  clearly  revealed,  (p.  88.) 

"  And  if  the  writers  before  St.  Augustine  say  little  concerning  it,  is 
not  the  reason  plain  ?  The  occasions  of  tlieir  writing  did  not  lead 
them  to  enlarge,  on  what  none  had  ever  opposed  or  denied.  For 
none  had  ever  opposed  or  denied  this  doctrine.  '  Who,'  says  Vicen- 
tius  Lirinensis,  '  before  Celestius,  denied  all  mankind  to  be  involved 
in  the  guilt  of  Adam's  transgression  V  Yet  they  are  not  silent  con- 
cerning it.  Justin  Martyr  speaks  of  '  mankind,  as  fallen  under  death 
and  the  deceit  of  the  serpent.'  (Dial,  with  Trypbo.)  Of  '  all  Adam's 
ijescendants,  as  condemned  for  his  sin,  and  £J1  that  are  Chtist's,  as 
Vol.  9.— G  g 


350  TilJi    DOCTHrNE    of  [rART  VI.. 

justified  by  him.'  In  Irenaeus  there  are  numerous,  strong,  express 
testimonies,  both  to  original  righteousness  and  original  sin  in  the  full 
extent,  '  What  we  lost  in  Adam,  that  is,  a  being  after  the  image  and 
likeness  of  God,  this  we  recover  by  Christ.'   (1.  3.  c.  20.)     Again.. 

*  They  w^ho  receive  the  engrafted  word  return  to  the  ancient  nature 
of  man,  that  by  which  he  w^as  made  '  after  the  image  and  likeness  ol 
God.'  (1.  5.  c.  10.)'    He  likewise  speaks  of  our  '  sinning  in  Adam  ;* 

*  In  the  first  Adam,'  says  he,  '  we  offended  God  ;  in  the  second  Adam 
we  are  reconciled.'  And  frequently,  of  '  man's  losing  the  image  of 
God  by  the  fall,  and  recovering  h  by  Christ.'  Tertullian  says,  '  Man 
was  in  the  beginning  deceived,  and  therefore  condemned  to  death  : 
upon  which  bis  Avhole  race  became  infected  and  partaker  of  his  con- 
demnation.' {De  testimonio  animK.)  Cyprian  is  express  in  his  epistle 
to  Fidus.  Origen  says,  '  The  curse  of  Adam  is  common  to  all. 
Again,  '  Man  by  sinning  lost  the  image  and  likeness  of  God.'  And 
again,  '  No  one  is  clean  from  the  filth  of  sin,  even  though  he  is  not 
above  a  day  old.'  (p.  93.) 

"  '  The  whole  of  me,'  says  Nazianzen,  '  has  need  of  being  saved, 
since  the  whole  of  me  fell,  and  was  condemned  for  the  disobedience 
of  my  first  father.'  Many  more  are  the  testimonies  of  Athanasius, 
Basil,  Hilary ;  all  prior  to  Augustine.  And  how  generally  since 
Augustine  this  important  truth  has  been  asserted,  is  well  known.  Plain 
it  is  therefore  that  the  churches  of  Christ  from  the  beginning,  have 
borne  clear  Testimony  to  it. 

"  To  conclude.  1.  This  is  a  scriptural  doctrine.  Many  plain 
texts  directly  teach  it. 

"  2.  It  is  a  rational  doctrine,  thoroughly  consistent  with  the  dictates 
of  sound  reason  :  and  this,  notwithstanding  there  may  be  some  cir- 
cumstances relating  thereto,  which  human  reason  cainiot  fathom,  (p. 
91.) 

"  3.  It  is  a  practical  doctrine.  It  has  the  closest  connexion  wiili 
the  life,  power,  and  practice  of  religion.  It  leads  men  to  the  founda- 
tion of  all  Cnristian  practice,  the  knowledge  of  himself:  and  here- 
by, to  the  knowledge  of  God,  and  the  knowledge  of  Christ  crucified. 
It  prepares  him  for,  and  confirms  him  in,  just  conceptions  of  the  de- 
pendence of  his  salvation,  on  the  merits  of  Christ  for  justification, 
and  the  power  of  his  Spirit  for  inw^ard  and  outward  holiness.  It 
humbles  the  natural  pride  of  man :  it  excludes  self-applause  and 
boasting :  and  points  out  the  true  and  only  way  whereby  we  may  fulfil 
all  righteousness. 

"  4.  It  is  an  experimental  doctrine.  The  sincere  Christian  day  by 
day  carries  the  proof  of  it  in  his  own  bosom  :  experiencing  that  in 
himself  which  is  abundantly  suflicient  to  convince  him,  that  '  in  him' 
by  nature  '  dwelleth  no  good  thing  ;'  but  that  '  it  is  God  alone  who 
worketh  in  him,  both  to  will  and  to  do,  of  his  good  pleasure.' 

Lewisham,  March  23,  1757. 

I  HAVE  now  gone  through,  as  my  leisure  would  permit,  this 
whole  complicated  question ;  and  I  have  spoken  on  each  branch  ol 
it  with  plainness  and  openness,  according  to  the  best  light  I  have  al 


r.VRT  VI.]  ORIGINAL   SIX.  351 

present.     I  have  only  a  few  words  more  to  add,  and  that  widi  the 
same  openness  and  simplicity. 

What  I  have  often  acknowledged,  I  now  repeat.  Were  it  not  on 
a  point  of  so  deep  importance,  I  would  no  more  enter  the  lists  with 
Dr.  Taylor,  than  I  would  lift  my  hand  against  a  giant.  I  acknowledge 
your  abilities  of  every  kind :  your  natural  and  acquired  endowments ; 
your  strong  understanding,  your  lively  and  fruitful  imagination,  your 
plain  and  easy,  yet  nervous  style.  I  make  no  doubt  of  your  having 
studied  the  otiginal  Scriptures  for  many  years.  And  I  believe  you 
have4noral  endowments,  which  are  infinitely  more  valuable  and  more 
amiable  than  all  these.  For  (if  I  am  not  greatly  deceived)  you  bear 
good-icUl  to  all  men.     And  may  not  I  r-dd,  you  fear  God  ? 

O  what  might  not  you  do,  with  these  abilities  ?     What  would  be 
too  gieat  for  you  to  attempt  and  effect  ?     Of  what  service  might  you 
be  not  only  to  your  own  countrymen,  but  to  all  that  bear  the  Chris- 
tian name  ?     How  might  you  advance  the  cause  of  true,  primitive, 
scriptural   Christianity'?     Of  solid,  rational  virtue?     Of  the  deep, 
holy,  happy,  spiritual  religion,  which  is  brought  to  lig'U  by  the  gos- 
pel ?     How  capable  are  you  of  recommending,  not  barely  morality, 
(the  duty  of  man  to  man,)  but  piety,  the  duty  of  man  to  God  ?     Even 
the  '  worshipping  him  in  spirit  and  in  truth  T     How  well  qualified 
are  you,  to  explain,  enforce,  defend,  even  'the  deep  things  of  God?' 
The  nature  of  the  kingdom  of  God  xoitJun  us?     Yea,  the  hiteriora 
regni  Dei  ?     (I  speak  on  supposition  of  your  having  the  '  unction  of 
the  Holy  One,'  added  to  your  other  qualifications.)     And  are  you, 
whom  God  has  so  highly  favoured,  among  those  who  serve  the  oppo- 
site cause  ?     If  one  might  transfer  the  words  of  a  man  to  him,  might 
not  one  conceive  him  tO  say,  Ksk  <tv  ei  ixeimv,  «.ui  c-v  t^kvov  j    Are  you 
disserving  the  cause  of  inward  religion  ?      Labouring  to  destroy 
the    inward    kingdom  of   God  ?      Sapping  the  foundation  of  all 
true,  spiritual  worship  ?     Advancing  morality  on  the  ruins  of  piety  ? 
Are  you  among  those  who  are  overthrowing  the  very  foundations  of 
primitive,  scriptural    Christianitxj  ?      Which  certainly  can    have  no 
ground  to  stand  upon,  if  the  scheme  lately  advanced  be  true.     What 
room  is  there  for  it,  till  men  repent?     Know  themselves?     Without 
this  can  they  know  or  love  God  ?     O  why  should  you  block  up  the 
way  to  repentance  ?     And  consequently,  to  the  whole  religion  of  the 
heart  ?     '  Let  a  man  be  a  fool,'  says  the  Apostle,  that  '  he  may  be 
wise.'     But  you  tell  him,  he  is  wise  already;  that  every  man  is  by 
nature,  as  wise  as  Adam  was  in  Paradise.     He  gladly  drinks  in  the 
f<oothing  sound,  and  sleeps  on  and  takes  his  rest.     We  beseech  those 
who  are  mad  after  earthly  things,  to  take  knowledge  of  the  dreadful 
state  they  are  in.     To  return  to  their  Father,  and  beg  of  him  '  the 
Spirit  of  love  and  of  a  sound  mind.'     You  tell  them,  they  are  of  a 
sound!  mind  already.     They  believe,  and  turn  to  their  husks  again. 
Jesus  comes  to  '  seek  and  save  that  which  is  lost.'     You  tell  the  men 
of  form,  (though  as  dead  to  God  as  a  stone,)  that  they  are  not  lost : 
that  (inasmuch  as  they  are  free  from  gross  sins)  they  are  in  a  good 
way,  and  will  undoubtedly  be  saved.  •  So  they  live  and  die,  without 
the  knowledge,  love,  or  image  of  God,  and  die  eternally ! 


352  THE   DOCTRINE   OF  fpART  VII, 

"  They  uill  be  saved."  But  are  they  saved  already  ?  We  know 
all  real  Christians  are.  If  they  are,  if  these  are  possessed  of  the 
present  salvation  which  the  Scriptures  speak  of,  what  is  that  salvation? 
How  poor,  dry,  dull,  shalloAV,  superficial  a  thing  ?  Wherein  does  it 
excel  what  the  wiser  Heathens  taught,  nay,  and  perhaps  experienced? 
Wliat  poor,  pitiable  creatures  are  those  Christians,  so  called,  who 
have  advanced  no  higher  than  this  1  You  see  enough  of  these  on 
every  side  :  perhaps  even  in  your  own  congregation.  What  know- 
ledge have  they  of  ihe  things  of  God  ?  What  love  to  God,  or  to 
Christ  ?  What  heavenly-mindedness  1  How  much  of  the  '  mind 
which  was  in  Christ  Jesus  ?'  How  little  have  they  profited  by  all 
your  instructions  1  How  few  are  wiser  and  better  than  when  you 
knew  them  first  ?  O  take  knowledge  of  the  reason  why  they  are 
not.  That  doctrine  will  not  'make  them  wise  unto  salvation.'  All 
it  can  possibly  do,  is  to  shake  off  the  leaves.  It  does  not  afiect  the 
branches  of  sin.  Unholy  tempers  are  just  as  they  were.  Much  less 
does  it  strike  at  the  root :  pride,  self-will,  unbelief,  heart-idolatry,  re- 
main undisturbed,  i^nd  unsuspected. 

I  am  grieved  for  the  people  who  are  thus  seeking  death  in  the  error 
of  their  life.  I  am  grieved  for  you,  who  surely  desire  to  teach  them 
the  way  of  God  in  truth.  O  Sir,  think  it  possible  that  you  may  have 
been  mistaken !  That  you  may  have  leaned  too  far,  to  what  you 
thought  the  better  extreme.  Be  persuaded  once  more  to  review  your 
whole  cause,  and  that  from  the  very  foundation.  And  in  doing  so, 
you  will  not  disdain  to  desire  more  than  natural  light.  O  that  '  the 
Father  of  glory,'  may  '  give  unto  you  the  spirit  of  wisdom  and  re- 
velation !'  May  he  '  enlighten  the  eyes  of  your  understanding,  that 
you  may  know  what  is  the  hope  of  his  calling,  and  what  the  riches 
of  the  glory  of  his  inheritance  in  the  saints !' 

Lewisham,  March  24,  1757. 


Px\RT  VII„ 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ORIGINAL  8IN. 

Because  of  the  unspeakable  importance  of  thoroughly  understand- 
ing this  grand  foundation  of  all  revealed  religion,  I  subjoin  one 
more  extract,  relating  both  to  the  original  and  the  present  state  of 
man. 

"  God  made  man  upright*  By  man  we  are  to  understand  our^rsf 
parents,  the  archetypal  pair,  the  root  of  mankind.  This  man  was 
made  right,  (agreeably  to  the  nature  of  God,  whose  work  is  perfect,) 
without  any  imperfection,  corruption,  or  principle  of  corruption,  in 
his  body  or  soul.  He  was  made  upright,  that  is,  straight  with  the 
will  and  law  of  God,  without  any  irregularity  in  his  soul.  God 
made  him  thus  ;  he  did  not  first  make  him,  and  then  make  him  right- 

*  Mr.  Boston's  Four-fold  State  of  Man. 


VART  vn.]  DRlGINAL   SIN.  353 

»5ous :  but  in  the  very  making  of  him  he  made  him  righteous :  right- 
eousness was  concreated  with  him.  With  the  same  breatli  that  God 
breathed  into  him  a  Hving  soul,  he  breathed  into  him  a  righteous 
soul. 

"  This  righteousness  was  the  conformity  of  all  the  faculties  and 
powers  of  his  soul  to  the  moral  law:  which  implied  three  things. 

"  First,  his  understanding  was  a  lamp  of  light.  He  was  made  after 
God's  image,  and  consequently  could  not  want  knowledge,  which  is 
a  part  thereof  And  a  perfect  knowledge  of  the  law  was  necessary 
to  fit  him  for  universal  obedience,  seeing  no  obedience  can  be  ac- 
cording to  the  law  unless  it  proceed  from  a  sense  of  the  command  of 
God  requiring  it.  It  is  true,  Adam  had  not  the  law  written  on  tables 
of  stone  ;  but  it  was  written  upon  his  mind.  God  impressed  it  upon 
his  soul,  and  made  him  a  law  to  himself,  as  the  remains  of  it,  even 
among  the  Heathens  testify.  And  seeing  man  was  made  to  be  the 
mouth  of  the  creation,  to  glorify  God  in  his  works,  we  have  ground 
to  believe,  he  had  an  exquisite  knowledge  of  the  works  of  God.  We 
have  a  proof  of  this  in  his  giving  names  to  the  beasts  of  the  field,  and 
the  fowls  of  the  air,  and  these  such  as  express  their  nature.  'What- 
soever Adam  called  every  living  thing,  that  was  the  name  thereof 
And  the  dominion  which  God  gave  him  over  the  creatures,  soberly  to 
use  them  according  to  his  will,  (still  in  subordination  to  the  Will  of 
God,)  implies  a  knowledge  of  their  natures. 

"Secondly,  His  will  lay  straight  with  the  will  of  God.  There  was 
no  corruption  in  his  w^ill,  no  bent  or  inclination  to  evil ;  for  that  is 
sin,  properly  so  called :  and,  therefore,  inconsistent  with  that  up- 
rightness with  which  it  is  expressly  said  he  was  endued  at  his 
creation.  The  will  of  man  was  then  naturally  inclined  to  God  and 
goodness,  though  mutably.  It  was  disposed  by  its  original  make  to 
follow  the  Creator's  will,  as  the  shadow  does  the  body.  It  was  not 
left  in  an  equal  balance  to  good  and  evil;  for  then  he  had  not  been 
upright,  or  conform  to  the  law ;  which  no  more  can  allow  the  crea- 
ture not  to  be  inclined  to  God  as  his  end,  than  it  can  allow  man  to 
be  a  god  to  himself. 

"  Thirdly,  His  affections  were  regular,  pure,  and  holy.  All  his 
passions,  yea  all  his  sensitive  motions  and  inclinations  were  subordi- 
nate to  his  reason  and  will,  which  lay  straight  with  the  will  of  God. 
They  were  all,  therefore,  pure  from  all  defilement,  free  from  all  dis- 
order or  distemper  ;  because  all  their  motions  were  duly  subjected 
to  his  clear  reason  and  his  holy  will.  He  had  also  an  executive  jiower, 
answerable  to  his  will :  a  power  to  do  the  good  which  he  knew  should 
be  done,  and  which  he  inclined  to  do ;  even  to  fulfil  the  whole  law 
of  God.  If  it  had  not  been  so,  God  would  not  have  required  perfect 
obedience  of  him.  For  to  say,  that  'the  Lord  gathereth  where  he 
hath  not  strewed,'  is  but  the  blasphemy  of  a  slothful  servant. 

"From  what  has  been  said  it  may  be  gathered,  that  man's  original 
righteousness  was  universal  and  natural,  yet  mutable. 

"1.  It  was  universal,  both  with  respect  to  the  subject  of  it,  the 
whole  man,   and  the  object  of  it,  the  whole  law :  it  was  diffused 

Gg  2 


354  THE   DOCTRINE   OF  f  PART  VlT, 

through  the  uhole  man ;  it  was  a  blessed  leaven  that  leavened  the 
whole  lump.  Man  was  then  holy  in  soul,  body,  and  spirit :  while  the 
soul  remained  untainted,  the  members  of  the  body  were  consecrated 
vessels  and  instruments  of  righteousness.  A  combat  between  reason 
and  appetite,  nay  the  least  inclination  to  sin,  was  utterly  inconsistent 
with  this  uprightness  in  which  man  was  created  ;  and  has  been  in- 
vented to  veil  the  corruption  of  man's  nature,  and  to  obscure  the 
grace  of  God  in  Christ  Jesus.  And  as  this  righteousness  spread 
through  the  whole  man,  so  it  respected  the  whole  law.  There  was 
nothing  in  the  law,  but  what  was  agreeable  to  his  reason  and  will. 
His  soul  was  shapen  out  in  length  and  breadth,  to  the  commandment^ 
though  exceeding  broad  ;  so  that  his  original  righteousness  was  not 
only  perfect  in  parts  but  in  degrees. 

"  2.  As  it  was  imiversal,  so  it  was  natural  to  him.  He  was  created 
with  it.  And  it  was  necessary  to  the  perfection  of  man,  as  he  came 
out  of  the  hand  of  God  :  necessary  to  constitute  him  in  a  state  of  in- 
tegrity.    Yet 

"  3.  It  was  mutable.  It  was  a  righteousness  which  might  be  lost„ 
as  appears  from  the  sad  event.  His  will  was  not  inditferent  to  good 
and  evil :  God  set  it  towards  good  only,  yet  did  not  so  fix  it,  that  it 
could  not  alter  ;  it  was  moveable  to  evil,  but  by  man  himself  only. 

"  Thus  was  man  made  originally  righteous,  being  *  created  in  God's 
own  image,'  (Gen.  i.  27,)  which  consists  in  knowledge,  righteous- 
ness, and  holiness.  (Col.  iii.  10.  Eph.  iv.  24.)  All  that  God  made 
was  very  good,  according  to  then-several  natures.  (Gen.  i.  31.)  And 
so  man  was  morally  good,  being  made  after  the  image  of  him  who  is 
good  and  upright.  (Psa.  xxv.  8.)  Without  this  he  could  not  have 
answered  the  end  of  his  creation,  which  was  to  know,  love,  and  serve 
his  God.  Nay,  he  could  not  be  created  otherwise.  For  he  must 
either  have  been  conformed  to  the  law  in  his  powers,  principles,  and 
inclinations,  or  not.  If  he  was,  he  was  righteous ;  if  not,  he  was  a  sin- 
ner, which  is  absurd  and  horrible  to  imagine. 

"And  as  man  was  holy,  so  he  was  happy.  He  was  full  of  peace. 
as  well  as  of  love.  And  he  was  the  favourite  of  heaven.  He  bore 
the  image  of  God,  who  cannot  but  love  his  own  image.  While  he 
was  alone  in  the  world  he  was  not  alone,  for  he  had  free,  full  commu- 
nion tvilh  God.  As  yet  there  was  nothing  to  turn  away  Ihe  face  oi 
God  from  the  work  of  his  own  hands :  seeing  sin  had  not  as  yet  en- 
tered, which  alone  could  make  the  breach. 

"He  was  also  lord  of  the  world,  universal  emperor  of  the  wliole 
earth.  His  Creator  gave  him  'dominion  over  the  fish  of  the  sea,  the 
fowl  of  the  air,  and  every  thing  that  moveth  on  the  earth.'  He  was 
God's  deputy-governor  in  the  lower  world ;  and  this  his  dominion 
was  an  image  of  God's  sovereignty.  Thus  was  man  'crowned  with 
glory  and  honour,  having  all  things  put  under  his  feet.' 

"  Again,  as  he  had  perfect  tranquillity  in  his  own  breast,  so  he  had 
a  perfect  calm  without.  His  heart  had  nothing  to  reproach  him 
with,  and  without  there  was  nothing  to  annoy  him.  Their  beautiful 
bodies  were  not  capable  of  injuries  from  the  air.     They  were  fiabie 


PART  VII,]  ORIGINAL  SlTf,  3^5 

to  no  diseases  or  pains ;  and  though  they  were  not  to  live  idle,  yef 
toil,  weariness,  and  sweat  of  the  brows,  were  not  known  in  this  state. 

"Lastly,  He  was  immortal.  He  would  never  have  died  if  he  had 
not  sinned.  Death  was  threatened  only  in  case  of  sin.  The  perfect 
constitution  of  his  body,  which  came  out  of  God's  hand  was  very 
good,  and  the  righteousness  of  his  soul  removed  all  inward  causes  of 
death.  And  God's  special  care  of  his  innocent  creature  secured 
him  against  outward  violence.  Such  were  the  holiness  and  the  hap- 
piness of  man  in  his  original  state. 

"  But  there  is  now  a  sad  alteration  in  our  nature.  It  is  now  en- 
tirely corrupted.  Where  at  first  there  was  nothing  evil,  there  is  now 
n6thing  good :   I  shall, 

"  First,  Prove  this : 

"Secondly,  Represent  this  corniption  in  its  several  parts: 

"  Thirdly,  Show  how  man's  nature  comes  to  be  thus  corrupted.* 

"  First,  1  shall  prove  that  man's  nature  is  corrupted,  both  by 
God's  word,  and  by  men's  experience  and  observation. 

"  I.  For  proof  from  God's  word,  let  us  consider, 

"  1.  How  it  takes  particular  notice  of  fallen  Adam's  communi- 
cating his  image  to  his  posterity.  Gen.  v.  iii,  'Adam  begat  a  son  in  his 
own  likeness,  after  his  image.'  Compare  this  with  ver.  1,  'In  the 
day  that  God  created  man,  in  the  image  of  God  made  he  him.'  Be- 
hold here,  how  the  image  after  which  man  was  made,  and  the  image 
after  which  he  is  begotten,  are  opposed.  Man  was  made  in  the  like- 
ness of  God ;  a  holy  and  righteous  God  made  a  holy  and  righteous 
creature  ;  but  fallen  Adam  begat  a  son,  not  in  the  likeness  of  God, 
but  in  his  own  likeness  :  corrupt,  sinful  Adam,  begat  a  corrupt,  sin- 
ful son.  For  as  the  image  of  God  included  righteousness  and  immor- 
tality, so  this  image  of  fallen  Adam,  included  corruption  and  death, 
Moses  giving  us  in  this  chapter  the  first  bill  of  mortality  that  ever 
was  in  the  world,  ushers  it  in  with  this  observation,  that  dying  Adam 
begat  mortals.  Having  sinned  he  became  mortal,  according  to  the 
threatening.  And  so  he  <  begat  a  son  in  his  own  likeness,'  sinful 
and  therefore  mortal ;  and  so  '  sin  and  death  passed  on  all.' 

"  Let  us  consider,  2.  that  text.  Job  xiv.  4,  <  Who  can  bring  a  clean 
filing  out  of  an  unclean  ?  Not  one.'  Our  first  parents  were  unclean  ; 
how  then  can  we  be  clean  ]  How  could  our  immediate  parents  be 
clean  1  Or  how  shall  our  children  be  sol  The  uncleanness  here 
mentioned  is  a  sinful  uncleanness  ;  for  it  is  such  as  makes  man's 
days  <  full  of  trouble.'  And  it  is  natural,  being  derived  from  un- 
clean parents.  '  How  can  he  be  clean  that  is  born  of  a  woman  V 
God  can  briiig  a  clean  thing  out  of  an  unclean  ;  and  did  so  in  the 
case  of  the  man,  Christ ;  but  no  other  can.  Every  person  then 
that  is  born  according  to  the  course  of  nature  is  born  unclean ;  if 
the  root  be  corrupt  so  are  the  branches.  Neither  is  the  matter 
mended,  though  the  parents  be  holy.  For  they  are  such  by  gracejy 
not  by  nature  :  and  they  beget  their  children  as  men,  not  as  holy 
meji ;  wherefore  as  the  circumcised  parent  begets  an  uucircumcised 


356  THE   DOCTRINE   6r  [PART  VIT- 

child,  so  the  holiest  parents  beget  unholy  children,  and  cannot  com- 
municate their  grace  to  them  as  they  do  their  nature. 

"  3.  Hear  our  Lord's  determination  of  the  point.  John  iii.  6, 
'  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh.'  Behold  the  corruption  ol 
all  mankind  ;  all  are  flesh.  It  does  not  mean  all  are  frail  (though 
that  is  a  sad  truth  too  :  yea,  and  our  natural  frailty  is  an  evidence 
of  our  natural  corruption  :)  but,  all  are  corrupt  and  sinful,  and  that 
naturally.  Hence  our  Lord  argues,  that  because  they  are  flesh, 
therefore  they  '  must  be  born  again,'  or  they  '  cannot  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  God.'  ver.  3,  5.  And  as  the  corruption  of  our  nature 
evidences-  the  necessity  of  regeneration,  so  the  necessity  of  regene- 
ration, proves  the  corruption  of  our  nature.  For  why  should  a  man 
need  a  second  birth  if  his  nature  were  not  ruined  in  the  first  birth  1 
Even  infants  must  be  born  again,  for  this  rule  admits  of  no  excep- 
tion. And,  therefore,  they  were  circumcised  under  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, as  having  '  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh,'  (Avhich  is  convey- 
ed to  them  by  natural  generation,)  the  whole  old  man,  to  put  off. 
(Col.  ii.  11.)  And  now  by  the  appointment  of  Christ,  they  are  to  be 
baptized  ;  which  shows  they  are  unclean,  and  that  there  is  no  salva- 
tion for  them,  but  '  by  the  washing  of  regeneration,  and  renewing  of 
the  Holy  Ghost.' 

"4.  '  We  are  by  nature  children  of  wrath.*  We  are  worthy  of, 
and  liable  to  the  wrath  of  God  :  and  that  by  nature ;  and  therefore 
doubtless  we  are  by  nature  sinful  creatures.  We  are  condemned 
before  we  have  done  good  or  evil ;  under  the  curse  ere  we  know 
what  it  is.  But '  will  a  lion  roar  in  the  forest  while  he  hath  no  prey  ?' 
Will  a  holy  and  just  God  roar  in  his  wrath  against  man,  if  he  be  not 
by  his  sin  made  a  prey  for  wrath  ]  No,  he  will  not,  he  cannot.  We 
conclude  then,  that  according  to  the  w6rd  of  God,  man's  nature  is  a 
corrupt  nature. 

"  If  we  consult  experience,  and  observe  the  case  of  the  world,  in 
the  things  that  are  obvious  to  any  person,  we  shall  by  its  fruits  easily 
discover  the  root  of  bitterness.     I  shall  instance  but  in  a  few. 

"  1.  Who  sees  not  a  flood  of  miseries  overflowing  the  world  1 
Every  one  at  home  and  abroad,  in  city  and  country,  in  palaces  and 
cottages,  is  groaning  under  some  unpleasing  circumstance  or  other. 
Some  are  oppressed  with  poverty  or  want,  some  chastened  with  pain 
or  sickness  :  some  are  lamenting  their  losses  ;  none  is  without  a 
cross  of  one  sort  or  another.  No  man's  condition  is  so  soft  but  there 
is  some  thorn  of  uneasiness  in  it.  And  at  length  death,  the  wages  of 
sin,  comes  and  sweeps  all  away.  Now  what  but  sin  has  opened  the 
sluice?  There  is  not  a  complaint  or  sigh  heard  in  the  world,  or  a 
tear  that  falls  from  our  eye,  but  it  is  an  evidence,  that  man  is  fallen 
as  a  star  from  heaven.  For  God  '  distributeth  sorrows  in  his  anger.' 
(Job  xxi.  17.)  This  is  a  plain  proof  of  the  corruption  of  nature  : 
forasmuch  as  those  that  have  not  actually  sinned,  have  their  share  of 
these  sorrows  ;  yea,  and  draw  their  first  breath  weeping.  There 
are  also  graves  of  the  smallest  as  well  as  the  largest  size  :  and  there 


PART   VII.]  ORIGINAL   SIN.  357 

are  never  wanting  some  in  the  world,  who,  like  Rachel,  are  *  weep- 
ing for  their  children,  because  they  are  not' 

"  2.  How  early  does  this  corruption  of  nature  appear  ?  It  is 
soon  discerned  which  way  the  bias  of  the  heart  lies.  Do  not  the 
children  of  fallen  Adam,  before  they  can  go  alone,  follow  their  fa- 
ther's footsteps  ]  What  pride,  ambition,  curiosity,  vanity,  wilfulness^ 
and  averseness  to  good  appear  in  them  1  And  when  they  creep  out 
of  infancy,  there  is  a  necessity  of  using  <  the  rod  of  C^orrection  to 
drive  away  the  foolishness  that  is  bound  in  their  heart.' 

"  3,  Take  a  view  of  the  out-breakings  of  sin  in  the  world.  'The 
wickedness  of  man  is  yet  great  in  the  earth.'  Behold  the  bitter 
fruits  of  corrupt  nature  !  '  By  swearing,  and  lying,  and  killing,  and 
stealing,  and  committing  adultery,  they  break  out,'  (like  the  break- 
ing forth  of  waters,)  'and  blood  toucheth  blood.'  The  world  is  filled 
with  all  manner  of  filthiness,  wickedness,  and  impiety.  And  whence 
is  this  deluge  of  sin  on  the  earth,  but  from  the  breaking  up  of  the 
fountains  of  the  great  deep,  the  heart  of  man,  out  of  which  '  proceed 
adulteries,  fornications,  murders,  thefts,  covetousness,  wickedness.* 
Ye  may,  it  may  be,  thank  God,  that  ye  are  not  in  these  respects,  '  like 
other  men.'  And  you  have  reason,  for  the  corruption  of  nature  is 
the  very  same  in  you  as  in  them. 

"  4.  Cast  your  eye  upon  those  terrible  convulsions  the  world  is 
thrown  into  by  the  wickedness  of  men.  Lions  prey  not  on  lions, 
nor  wolves  on  wolves ;  but  men  bite  and  devour  one  another. 
Upon  how  slight  occasions  will  men  sheathe  their  swords  in  one  ano- 
ther's bowels'?  Since  Cain  shed  Abel's  blood,  the  world  has  been 
turned  into  a  slaughter-house.  And  the  chase  has  been  continued^ 
ever  since  Nimrod  began  his  hunting  :  as  on  the  earth,  so  in  the  seas, 
the  greater  still  devouring  the  lesser.  Now  when  we  see  the  world 
in  such  a  fermen' ,  every  one  stabbing  another  with  words  or  swords ; 
these  violent  heats  among  the  sons  of  Adam,  speak  the  whole  body 
to  be  distempered  :  '  the  whole  head  to  be  sick,  and  the  whole  heart 
faint.' 

"  5.  Consider  the  necessity  of  human  laws,  fenced  with  terror? 
and  severities.  Man  was  made  for  society  :  and  God  himself  said 
when  he  created  him,  it  was  not  good  for  him  to  be  alone.  Yet  the 
case  is  such  now,  that  in  society,  he  must  be  hedged  in  with  thorns. 
And  that  from  hence  we  may  the  better  discern  the  corruption  of 
man's  nature,  consider,  1 .  Every  man  naturally  loves  to  be  at  full 
liberty  himself;  and,  were  he  to  follow  his  inclination,  would  vote 
himself  out  of  the  reach  of  all  laws,  divine  and  human.  Yet,  2, 
No  man  would  willingly  venture  to  live  in  a  lawless  society :  and, 
therefore,  even  pirates  and  robbers  have  laws  among  themselves." 
Thus  men  show  they  are  conscious  of  the  corruption  of  nature,  not 
daring  to  trust  one  another  but  upon  security.  3.  How  dangerous 
soever  it  is  to  break  through  the  hedge,  yet  many  will  do  it  daily. 
They  will  not  only  sacrifice  their  conscience  and  credit,  but  for  the 
pleasure  of  a  few  moments,  lay  themselves  open  to  a  violent  death, 
by  the  laws  of  the  land  wherein  they  live.     4.  Laws  are  often  mad*5 


3i38  THE   DOCTRIXfi   OF  [PART  VII. 

to  yield  to  man's  lusts.  Sometimes  whole  societies  break  off  the 
letters,  and  the  voice  of  laws  cannot  be  heard  for  the  noise  of  arms. 
And  seldom  there  is  a  time,  wherein  there  are  not  some  persons  so 
great  and  daring,  that  the  laws  dare  not  look  them  in  the  face.  5. 
Observe  even  the  Israelites,  separated  to  God  from  all  the  nations  of 
the  earth.  Yet  what  horrible  confusions  were  among  them,  when 
'  there  was  no  king  in  Israel  V  How  hard  was  it  to  reform  them,  when 
they  had  the  best  of  magistrates?  And  how  quickly  did  they  turn 
aside  again,  when  they  had  wicked  rulers  1  It  seems  one  grand  de- 
sign of  that  sacred  history,  was  to  discover  the  corruption  of  man's 
nature.  6.  Consider  the  remains  of  natural  corruption  even  in 
them  that  believe.  Though  grace  has  entered,  corruption  is  not  ex- 
pelled ;  they  find  it  with  them  at  all  times  and  in  all  places.  If  a  man 
have  an  ill  neighbour,  he  may  remove  ;  but  should  he  go  into  a  wil- 
derness, or  pitch  his  tent  on  a  remote  rock  in  the  sea,  there  it  will 
be  with  him.  I  need  not  stand  to  prove  so  clear  a  point.  But  con- 
sider these  {ew  things  on  this  head.  1.  If  it  be  thus  in  the  green 
tree,  how  must  it  be  in  the  dry  *?  Does  so  much  of  the  old  remain 
even  in  those  who  have  received  a  neio  nature  ?  Hov/  great  then  must 
that  corruption  be  in  those,  where  it  is  unmixed  with  renew  mg 
grace  1  2.  Though  natural  corruption  is  no  burden  to  a  natr.'-al 
man,  is  he  therefore  free  from  it  ?  No,  no.  Only  he  is  dead,  and 
feels  not  the  sinking  weight.  Many  a  groan  is  heard  from  a  sick-bed, 
but  never  one  from  a  grave.  3.  The  good  man  resists  the  old  na- 
ture :  he  strives  to  starve  it ;  yet  it  remains.  How  must  it  sprtad 
then  and  strengthen  itself  in  the  soul,  where  it  is  not  starved,  but 
fed,  as  in  unbelievers  1  If  the  garden  of  the  diligent  find  him  full 
work,  in  cutting  off  and  rooting  up,  surely  that  of  the  sluggard  must 
needs  be  •  all  grown  over  with  thorns.' 

"  I  shall  add  but  one  observation  more,  that  in  every  man  natu- 
rally the  image  of  fallen  Adam  appears  :  to  evince  which,  I  appeal 
to  the  consciences  of  all,  in  the.  following  particulars. 

"  1.  If  God  by  his  holy  law  or  wise  providence  put  a  restraint 
upon  us,  to  keep  us  back  from  any  thing,  does  not  that  restraint 
whet  the  edge  of  our  natural  inclinations,  and  make  us  so  much  the 
keener  in  our  desires  1  The  very  Heathens  were  convinced,  that 
there  is  this  spirit  of  contradiction  in  us,  though  they  knew  not  the 
spring  of  it.  How  often  do  men  give  themselves  a  loose  in  those 
things  wherein  if  God  had  left  them  at  liberty,  they  would  have 
bound  up  themselves  ?  And  is  not  this  a  repeating  of  our  father's 
folly,  that  men  will  rather  climb  for  forbidden  fruit,  than  gather  what 
providence  offers  to  them,  when  they  have  God's  express  allowance 
ibr  it  ? 

"  2.  Is  it  not  natural  to  us,  to  care  for  the  body  at  the  expense  of 
the  soul  1  This  was  one  ingredient  in  the  sin  of  our  first  parents. 
(Gen.  iii.  6.)  O  how  happy  might  we  be,  if  we  were  but  at  half 
the  pains  about  our  souls,  which  we  bestow  upon  our  bodies  1  If  that 
question,  'What  must  I  do  to  be  saved?  did  but  run  near  so  often 


PART   VII.]  ORIGINAL   SIN.  359 

through  our  mhids,  as  those,  *  What  shall  we  eat  V  <  What  shall  wc 
drink  V  '  Wherewithal  shall  we  be  clothed  V 

"3.  Is  not  every  one  by  nature  discontent  with  his  present  lot,  or 
with,  s'ome  one  thing  or  other  in  it?  Some  one  thing  is  always  miss- 
ing :  so  that  man  is  a  creature  given  to  change.  If  any  doubt  of 
this,  let  them  look  over  all  their  enjoyments,  and  after  a  review  of 
them,  listen  to  their  own  hearts,  and  they  will  hear  a  secret  murmur- 
ing, for  want  of  something.  Since  the  hearts  of  our  first  parents 
wandered  from  God,  their  posterity  have  a  natural  disease,  which 
Solomon  calls,  *  The  wandering  of  desire,'  literally.  The  walking  of 
the  soul.  (Eccles.  vi.  9.)  This  is  a  sort  of  diabolical  trance,  wherein 
the  soul  traverseth  the  world,  feeds  itself  with  a  thousand  airy 
nothings,  snatcheth  at  this  and  the  other  imagined  excellency  :  goes 
here,  and  there,  and  every  where,  except  where  it  should  go.  And 
the  soul  is  never  cured  of  this  disease,  till  it  takes  up  its  rest  in  God 
through  Christ. 

"  4.  Do  not  Adam's  children  naturally  follow  his  footsteps,  in 
hiding  themselves  'from  the  presence  of  the  Lord?  (Gen.  iii.  8.) 
We  are  just  as  blind  in  this  matter  as  he  was,  who  thought  to  '  hide 
himself  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord  among  the  trees  of  the  garden.' 
We  promise  ourselves  more  security  in  a  secret  sin,  than  in  one  that 
is  openly  committed.  '  The  adulterer  saith.  No  eyes  shall  see  me.' 
And  men  will  freely  do  that  in  secret,  which  they  would  be  ashamed 
to  do  in  the  presence  of  a  child  :  as  if  darkness  could  hide  from  an 
all-seeing  God.  Are  we  not  naturally  careless  of  communion  with 
God  1  Nay,  and  averse  to  it  1  Never  was  there  any  communion  be- 
tween God  and  Adam's  children,  where  God  himself  had  not  the 
first  word.  If  he  would  let  them  alone,  they  would  never  inquire 
after  him. 

"  5.  How  loth  are  men  to  confess  sin,  to  take  guilt  and  shame  to 
themselves  1  And  was  it  not  thus  in  the  case  before  us  1  Adam  con- 
fesses his  nakedness,  (which  indeed  he  could  not  deny)  but  not  one 
word  does  he  say  about  his  sin.  It  is  as  natural  for  us  to  hide  sin  as 
to  commit  it.  Many  instances  of  this  we  see  daily  ;  but  how  many 
will  there  be  in  that  day,  when  God  '  will  judge  the.  secrets  of  men  :' 
Many  a  foul  moutn  will  then  be  seen,  which  is  now  wiped  and  saith, 
•  I  have  done  no  wickedness.' 

"  Lastly,  is  it  not  natural  for  us  to  extenuate  our  sin,  and  transfer 
the  guilt  to  others  1  As  Adam  laid  the  blame  of  his  sin  on  the  woman 't 
And  did  not  the  woman  lay  the  blame  on  the  serpent  ?  Adam's  chil- 
dren need  not  be  taught  this  ;  for  before  they  can  well  speak,  if  they 
cannot  deny,  they  lisp  out  solriething  to  lessen  their  fault,  and  lay  the 
blame  upon  another.  Nay  so  natural  is  this  to  men,  that  in  the 
greatest  of  sins  they  will  charge  the  fault  upon  God  himself;  blas- 
pheming his  Providence  under  the  name  of  ill-luck  or  misfortune^  and 
so  laying  the  blame  of  their  sin  at  heaven's  door.  Thus  does  '  the 
foolishness  of  man  pervert  his  ways  :'  and  his  heart  fretteth  against 
the  Lord.  Let  us  then  call  Adam,  father :  let  us  not  deny  the  rela- 
tion, seeing  we  bear  his  image. 


560  THE   DOCTRINE   OF  [I'ART  Vli, 

*'  I  proceed  to  inquire  into  the  corruption  of  nature  in  the  several 
parts  of  it.  But  who  can  take  the  exact  dimensions  of  it,  in  its 
breadth,  length,  height,  and  depth  ]  The  heart  is  deceitful  above  all 
things,'  and  desperately  wicked  :  who  can  know  it  ?  However  we  may 
quickly  perceive  so  much  of  it,  as  may  show  the  absolute  necessity 
of  regeneration.  Man  in  his  natural  state  is  altogether  corrupt, 
through  all  the  faculties  of  his  soul :  corrupt  in  his  understanding, 
his  will,  his  affections,  his  conscience,  and  his  memory. 

"  1.  The  understanding  is  despoiled  of  its  primitive  glory,  and 
covered  over  with  confusion.  We  are  fallen  into  the  hands  of  our 
grand  adversary,  and  are  deprived  of  our  two  eyes,  '  There  is  none 
that  understandeth;'  the  'very  mind  and  conscience'  of  the  natural 
man  are  defiled  or  spoiled.  But  to  point  out  this  corruption  of  the 
understanding  more  particularly,  let  the  following  things  be  con- 
sidered. 

"  First,  There  is  a  natural  tceakness  in  the  minds  of  men,  with  re- 
spect to  spiritual  things.  How  hard  is  it  to  teach  them  the  common 
principles  of  religion,  to  make  truths  so  plain,  that  they  may  under- 
stand them  1  Try  the  same  persons  in  other  things,  speak  of  the 
things  of  this  world,  and  they  will  understand  quickly  :  but  it  is  hard 
to  make  them  know,  how  their  souls  may  be  saved,  or  how  their 
hearts  may  find  rest  in  Christ,  Consider  even  those  who  have  many 
advantages  above  the  common  run  of  mankind :  yet  how  small  is 
their  knowledge  of  divine  things !  What  confusion  still  remains  in 
their  minds  1  How  often  are  they  mired,  and  speak  as  a  child,  even 
in  the  matter  of  practical  truths  ]  It  is  a  pitiable  wealvness,  that  we 
cannot  perceive  the  things  which  God  has  revealed.  And  it  must 
needs  be  a  sinful  weakness,  since  the  law  of  God  requires  us  to  know 
and  believe  them. 

"  Secondly,  Man's  understanding  is  naturally  overwhelmed  with 
gross  darhi^ess  in  spiritual  things.  Man,  at  the  instigation  of  the  Devil, 
attempting  to  break  out  a  new  light  in  his  mind,  instead  of  that, 
broke  up  the  doors  of  the  bottomless  pit,  by  the  smoke  whereof  he 
was  covered  with  darkness.  When  God  at  first  made  man,  his  mind 
was  a  lamp  of  light ;  but  sin  has  now  turned  it  into  darkness.  Sin 
has  closed  the  window  of  the  soul.  It  is  the  land  of  darkness  and  the 
shadow  of  death,  where  '  the  light  is  as  darkness.'  .  The  prince  of 
darkness  reigns  therein,  and  nothing  but  the  works  of  darkness  are 
framed  there.  That  you  may  be  the  more  fully  convinced  of  this, 
take  the  following  evidences  of  it. 

"  1,  The  darkness  that  was  upon  the  face  of  the  world  before,  and 
at  the  time  that  Christ  came.  When  Adam  by  his  sin  had  lost  his 
light,  it  pleased  God  to  reveal  to  him  the  way  of  salvation.  (Gen.  iii. 
15.)  This  was  handed  down  by  holy  men  before  the  flood  :  yet  the 
natural  darkness  of  the  mind  of  man  so  prevailed,  as  to  carry  oft'  all 
sense  of  true  religion  from  the  old  world,  except  what  remained 
in  Noah's  family.  After  the  flood,  qs  men  increased,  their  natural 
darkness  of  mind  prevailed  again,  and  the  light  decayed,  till  it  died 
out  among  the  generality  of  mankindj  and  was  preserved  only  amon^ 


PAKT   Vn.]  OKIGINAL   SI3V.  36 1 

the  posterity  of  Shem,  And  even  Avith  them  it  was  near  setting, 
when  God  called  Abraham  from  '  serving  other  gods.'  (Josh.  xxiv. 
15.)  God  gave  him  a  more  full  revelation,  which  he  communicated 
to  his  family  :  (Gen.  xxiii.  19.)  Yet  the  natural  darkness  wore  it  out 
at  length,  save  that  it  was  preserved  among  the  posterity  of  Jacob. 
In  Egypt  .ha;  darkness  so  prevailed  over  them  also,  that  a  new  reve- 
lation was  necessary.  And  many  a  dark  cloud  got  above  that, 
during  the  time  from  Moses  to  Christ.  Wnen  Christ  came,  nothing 
was  to  be  seen  in  the  Gentile  world,  but '  darkness  and  cruel  habita- 
tions.' They  were  drowned  in  superstition  and  idolatry  :  and  what- 
ever wisdom  was  among  their  philosophers,  '  the  world  by  that  wis- 
dom knew  not  God,'  but  became  more  and  more  vain  in  iheir  imagi- 
nations. Nor  were  the  Jews  much  wiser  :  except  a  tew,  gross  dark- 
ness covered  them  also.  Their  traditions  were  multiplied  ;  hut  the 
knowledge  of  those  things  wherein  the  life  of  religion  Ues,  was  lost. 
They  gloried  in  outward  ordinances,  but  knew  nothing  of '  worship 
ping  God  in  Spirit  and  in  truth.' 

"  Now  what  but  the  natural  darkness  of  men's  minds,  could  still 
thus  wear  out  the  light  of  external  revelation?  Men  did  not  forget 
the  way  of  preserving  their  lives  :  but  how  quickly  did  they  forget 
the  way  of  saving  their  souls  1  So  that  it  was  necessary  for  God  him- 
self to  reveal  it  again  and  again.  Yea,  and  a  mere  external  revela- 
tion did  not  suffice  to  remove  this  darkness  :  no,  not  when  it  was  by 
Christ  in  person  :  there  needed  also  the  Holy  Ghost  sent  down  from 
heaven.  Such  is  the  natural  darkness  of  our  minds,  that  it  only 
yields  to  the  Blood  and  Spirit  of  Christ. 

"  2.  Every  natural  man's  heart,  how  refined  soever  he  appear,  is 
full  of  darkness,  disorder,  and  confusion.  The  unrenewed  part  of 
mankind  are  rambling  through  the  world,  like  so  many  blind  men, 
who  will  neither  take  a  guide,  nor'can  guide  themselves,  and  there- 
fore fall  over  this  and  the  other  precipice  into  destruction.  Some 
are  running  after  their  covetousness,  some  sticking  in  the  mire  of 
sensuality,  others  dashing  on  the  rock  of  pride ;  every  one  stumbling 
on  one  stone  of  stumbling  or  other,  as  their  unmortified  passions 
drive  them.  And  while  some  are  lying  along  in  the  way,  others  are 
corning  up  and  falling  headlong  over  them.  Errors  swarm  in  the 
Avorld :  all  the  unregenerate  are  utterly  mistaken  in  the  point  of  true 
happiness.  All  desire  to  be  happy;  Ijut  touching  the  way  to  hap- 
piness, there  are  almost  as  many  opinions  as  there  are  men.  They 
are  like  the  blind  Sodomites  about  Lot's  house,  all  seeking  to  find 
the  door  but  in  vain.  Look  into  thine  own  heart,  (if  thou  art  nor 
born  again,)  and  thou  wilt  see  all  turned  upside  down;  heai^en 
lying  under,  the  earth  a-top:  look  into  thy  life,  and  see  how  thou  art 
playing  the  madman,  eagerly  flying  after  that  which  is  not,  and 
slighting  that  which  is,  and  will  be  for  ever.  Thus  is  man's  under- 
standing naturally  overwhelmed  with  gross  darkness  in  spiritual 
things. 

"  Thirdly,  There  is  in  the  mind  of  man  a  natural  bias  to  evil :  let 
^is  reflect  a  little,  and  we  shall  find  incontestible  evidence  of  it. 

Vol.  9.^H  h 


•'362  THE  DOCTBIXE  OF  [PART  VIl- 

"  1.  Men's  minds  have  a  natural  dexterity  to  do  mischief:  none 

are  so  simple  as  to  want  skill  for  this.     None  need  to  be  taught  it  i 

.  but  as  weeds  without  being  sown,  grow  up  of  their  own  accord,  so 

does  this  earthly,  sensual,  devilish  wisdom,  naturally  grow  up  in  us. 

"2.  We  naturally  form  gross  conceptions  of  spiritual  things,  as  it 
the  soul  were  quite  immersed  in  flesh  and  blood.  Let  men  but  look 
into  themselves,  and  they  will  find  this  bias  in  their  mind  :  whereo) 
the  idolatry  which  still  prevails  so  far  and  wide,  is  an  incontestible 
evidence.  For  it  plainly  shows,  men  would  have  a  visible  deity  ^ 
therefore  they  change  the  'glory  of  the  incorruptible  God  into  an 
image.'  Indeed  the  reformation  of  these  nations,  has  banished  grosfc^ 
idolatry  out  of  our  churches.  But  heart-reformation  alone  can 
banish  mental-idolatry,  subtle  and  refined  image-worship  out  of  our 
mhids. 

"  3.  How  difficult  is  it  to  detain  the  carnal  mind  before  the  Lordi 
To  fix  it  in  the  meditation  of  spiritual  things  ]  When  God  is  speaking 
to  man  by  his  word,  or  they  are  speaking  to  him  in  prayer,  the  body 
remains  before  God,  but  the  world  steals  away  the  heart.  Though 
the  eyes  be  closed,  the  man  sees  a  thousand  vanities,  and  the  mind 
roves  hither  and  thither  :  and  many  times  the  maYi  scarce  comes  to 
himself,  till  he  is  '  gone  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord.'  The  worldly 
man's  mind  does  not  v/ander  when  he  is  contriving  business,  casting 
up  his  accounts,  or  telling  his  money.  If  he  answers  you  not  at  first, 
he  tells  you,  he  did  not  hear  you,  he  was  busy,  his  mind  was  fixed. 
But  the  carnal  mind,  employed  about  spiritual  things,  is  out  of  its 
element,  and  therefore  cannot  fix. 

"4.  Consider  how  the  carnal  imagination  supplies  the  want  of 
real  objects  to  the  corrupt  heart.  The  unclean  person  is  filled  with 
speculative  impurities,  '  having  eyes  full  of  adultery.'  The  covetous 
man  fills  his  heart  with  the  world,  if  he  cannot  get  his  hands  full  of 
it.  The  malicious  person  acts  his  revenge  in  his  own  breast :  the 
envious  within  his  own  narrow  soul,  sees  his  neighbour  laid  low 
enough  :  and  so  every  lust  is  fed  by. the  imagination.  These  things 
may  suffice  to  convince  us,  of  the  natural  bias  of  the  mind  to  evil. 

"  Fourthly,  There  is  in  the  carnal  mind  an  opposition  to  spiritual 
truths,  and  an  aversion  to  receiving  them.  God  has  revealed  to  "sin- 
ners the  way  of  salvation  ;  he  has  given  his  word.  But  do  natural 
men  beheve  it  1  Indeed  they  do  not.  They  believe  not  the  pro- 
mises of  the  word  :  for  they  who  receive  them  are  thereby  made 
<  partakers  of  the  divine  nature.'  They  believe  not  the  word : 
otherwise  they  could  not  live  as  they  do.  I  doubt  not  but  most  if 
not  all  of  you,  who  are  in  a  state  of  nature,  will  here  plead,  not 
guilty.  But  the  vei^  difficulty  you  find  in  assenting  to  this  truth 
proves  the  unbelief  with  which  I  charge  you.  Has  it  not  proceeded 
so  far  with  some,  that  it  has  steeled  their  foreheads,  openly  to  reject 
all  revealed  religion  1  And  though  ye  set  not  your  mouths  as  they 
do  against  the  heavens,  yet  the  same  bitter  root  of  unbelief  is  in  you, 
and  reigns  and  will  reign  in  you  till  overcoming  grace  captivate  your 
minds  to  the  belief  of  the  truth.     To  convince  you  of  this, 

"  Consider,  1.  How  have  you  learned  those  truths  which  you 


VART  Vll.]  OKIUINAL  SIN.  •  3t>3 

think  you  believe  ?  Is  it  not  merely  by  the  benefit  of  your  educa- 
tion, and  of  external  revelation?  You  are  strangers  to  the  inward  work 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  bearing  witness  with  tlie  word  in  your  hearts  : 
and  therefore  ye  are  still  unbelievers.  '  It  is  written  in  the  pro[ihets, 
and  they  shall  be  all  taught  of  God,'  '  Every  one  therefore  that  hath 
heard  and  learned  of  the  Father,'  saith  our  Lord,  '  cometh  unto  me.' 
But  ye  have  not  come  to  Christ :  therefore  ye  have  not  been  '  taught 
of  God.'  Ye  have  not  been  so  taught,  and  therefore  ye  have  not 
come:  ye  believe  not. 

"Consider,  2.  The  utter  inconsistency  of  mOst  men's  lives  with 
the  principles  which  they  profess.  They  profess  to  believe  the 
Scripture  :  but  how  little  are  they  concerned  about  what  is  revealed 
therein  1  How  unconcerned  are  ye  even  about  that  weighty  point, 
whether  ye  be  born  again  or  not  1  Many  live  as  they  were  born, 
and  are  like  to  die  as  they  live,  and  yet  live  in  peace.  Do  such  be- 
lieve the  sinfulness  of  a  natural  state?  Do  they  believe  they  are 
'  children  of  wrath  V  Do  they  believe  there  is  no  salvation  without 
regeneration  ?  And  no  regeneration  but  what  makes  man  '  a  new 
creature  ?'  O  no  !  If  ye  did,  ye  could  not  live  in  your  sins,  live 
out  of  Christ,  and  yet  hope  for  mercy. 

"  Fifthly,  Man  is  naturally  high-minded.  Lowliness  is  not  a 
llower  which  grows  in  the  field  of  nature.  It  is  natural  to  man  to 
think  highly  of  himself,  and  what  is  his  own.  'Vain  man  would  be 
wise:'  so  he  accounts  himself,  and  so  he  would  be  accounted  by 
others.  His  way  is  right  because  it  is  his  own;  for  '  eveiy  way  of  a 
man  is  right  in  his  o^yn  eyes.'  He  is  '  alive  without  the  law  ;'  and 
therefore  his  hope  is  strong,  and  his  contidence  firm.  It  is  another 
tower  of  Babel :  the  word  batters  it,  yet  it  stands.  One  while 
breaches  are  made  in  it,  but  they  are  quickly  repaired.  At  another 
time,  it  is  all  made  to  shake ',  but  it  is  still  kept  up.;  till  God's  Spirit 
raises  a  heart-quake  within  the  man,  which  tumbles  it  down,  and 
leaves  not  one  stone  upon  another. 

"  Thus  much  of  the  corruption  of  the  understanding.  Call  the 
rmderstanding  Ichabod;  « for  the  glory  is  departed  from  it.'  Con- 
sider this,  ye  that  are  yet  in  the  state  of  nature,  and  groan  ye  out 
3'our  case  before  the  Lord,  that  the  Sun  of  Righteousness  may  arise 
upon  you,  before  ye  be  shut  up  in  everlasting  darkness.  What  avails 
your  worldly  wisdom  ?  What  do  all  your  attainments  in  religion 
avail,  while  your  understanding  lies  wrapped  up  in  darkness  and 
confusion,  utterly  void  of  the  Light  of  Life  1 

"  H.  Nor  is  the  Will  less  corrupted  than  the  understanding.  It 
was  at  first  faithful,  and  ruled  with  God  :  but  now  it  is  turned  traitor 
against  God,  and  rules  with  and  for  the  Devil.  To  open  this  plague 
of  the  heart,  let  the  following  thhigs  be  considered. 

"  First,  there  is  in  the  unrenewed  Will  an  utter  inabihty  for  what 
'  is  truly  good  in  the  sight  of  God.  Indeed  a  natural  man  has  a  power 
to  choose  and  do  what  is  materially  good:  but  though  he  can  will 
what  is  good  and  right,  he  can  do  nothing  aright  and  well.  '  With- 
out me,'  that  is,  separate  from  me,  '  ye  can  do  nothing ;'  nothing 
truly  and  spiritually  good.     To  evidence  this,  consider, 


364  THE    DOCTRINE    OF  [PART  VII. 

"  I.  How  often  do  men  see  the  good  they  should  choose,  and  the 
evil  they  should  refuse  ;  and  yet  their  hearts  have  no  more  power  to 
comply  with  their  light,  than  if  they  were  arrested  by  some  invisible 
hand  1  Their  consciences  tell  them  the  right  way  :  yet  cannot  their 
will  be  brought  up  to  it.  Else,  how  is  it,. that  the  clear  arguments 
on  the  side  of  virtue,  do  not  bring  men  over  to  that  side  ?  Although 
heaven  and  hell  were  but  a  may  be,  even  this  would  determine  the 
will  to  holiness,  could  it  be  determined  by  reason.  Yet  so  far  is  it 
from  this,  that  men  '  knowing  the  judgment  of  God,  that  they  who 
do  surh  things  are  Worthy  of  death,  not  only  do  ihe  same,  but  have 
pleasure  in  them  that  do  them.' 

"2.  Let  those  who  have  been  truly  convinced  of  the  spirituality 
of  the  law,  speak  and  tell  if  they  then  found  themselves  able  to  in- 
dine  their  liearts  toward  it.  Nay,  the  more  that  light  shone  in  their 
souls,  did  they  not  hnd  their  hearts  more  and  more  unable  to  comply 
with  it  1  Yea,  there  are  some  who  are  yet  in  the  Devil's  camp  that 
can  tell  from  their  own  exjterience,  light  let  into  the  mind  cannot 
give  life  to  (he  will,  or  enable  it  to  comply  therewith. 

"Secondly,  There  is  in  the  unrenewed  will  an  averseness  to  good. 
Sin  is  the  natural  man's  element-;  and  he  is  as  loth  to  part  with  it, 
as  the  fishes  are  to  come  out  of  the  water.  He  is  sick  ;  but  utterly 
averse  to  the  remedy  ;  he  loves  his  disease,  so  that  he  loaths  the  phy- 
sician. He  is  a  captive,  a  prisoner,  and  a  slave  ;  but  he  loves  his 
conqueror,  jailer,  and  master  :  he  is- fond  of  his  fetters,  prison,  and 
drudgery,  and  has  no  liking  to  his  liberty.  For  evidence  of  this 
averseness  to  good  in  the  will  of  man, 

"Consider,  1.  The  iintoioardness  of  children.  How  averse  are 
they  to  restraint  ]  Are  they  not  '  as  bullocks  unaccustomed  to  the 
yoke  V  Yea,  it  is  far  easier  to  tame  young  bullocks  to  the  yoke, 
than  to  bring  young  children  under  discipline.  Every  man  niay 
see  in  this  as  in  a  glass,  that  man  is  naturally  wild  and  wilful ;  that 
according  to  Zophar's  observation,  he  is  '  born  a  wild  ass's  colt.' 
What  can  be  said  more  1  He  is  like  a  colt,  the  colt  of  an  ass,  the 
colt  of  a  wild  ass :  '  a  wild  ass  used  to  the  wilderness,  that  snutfeth 
up  the  wind  at  her  pleasure  :  in  her  occasion,  who  can  turn  her 
away  V 

"  2.  What  pain  and  difficulty  do  men  find  in  bringing  their  hearts 
to  religious  duties'?  And  what  a  task  is  it  to  the  natural  man  to 
abide  at  them?  Ta leave  the  world  but  a  little,  and  conveise  with 
God?  When  they  are  engaged  in  worldly  business  or  company, 
time  seems  to  fly  and  is  gone  befoie  they  are  aware  But  how  hea- 
vily does  it  drive  while  a  prayer,  a  sermon,  or  a  sabbMh  lasts  1  With 
many  the  Lord's  Day  is  the  longest  dny  in  the  week  :  and  therelore 
they  must  sleep  longer  that  niorning,  and  go  sooner  to  bed  that  night 
than  ordinarily  they  do,  that  the  day  may  be  made  of  a  tolerable 
length.     And  still  their  hearts  say,  'When  will  the  sabbath  be  gone?  * 

"  3.  Consider  how  the  Will  of  the  natural  man  '  rebels  against 
l^he  light.'  Sometimes  he  is  not  able  to  keep  it  out ;  but  he  '  loves 
darkness  rather  than  light.'     The  outer  door  of  the  understanding 


VKT  Vn.J  OKIGIXAL   S1J«.  36i) 

is  broken  open,  but  the  inner  door  of  the  will  remains  shut.  Cor- 
ruption and  conscience  then  encounter ;  till  conscience  is  forced  to 
give  back :  convictions  are  murdered,  and  truth  is  made  and  held 
prisoner  '  in  unrighteousness.' 

"  4.  When  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  is  working  a  deeper  work,  yet 
what  resistance  does  the  soul  make  ?  When  he  comes,  he  finds  the 
•  strong  man  keeping  the  house,'  while  the  soul  is  fast  asleep  in  the 
Devil's  arms ;  till  the  Lord  awakens  the  sinner,  opens  his  eyes,  and 
strikes  him  with  terror,  while  the  clouds  are  black  above  his  head, 
and  the  sword  of  vengeance  is  held  to  his  breast.  But  what  pains  is 
he  at  to  put  a  fair  face  on  a  black  heart  1  To  shake  off  his  fears,  or 
make  head  against  them  ?  Carnal  reason  suggests,  if  it  be  ill  with 
him,  it  will  be  ill  with  many.  When  he  is  beat  from  this,  and  sees 
no  advantage  in  going  to  hell  with  company,  he  resolves  to  leave  his 
sins  ;  but  cannot  think  of  breaking  off  so  soon,  there  is  time  enough, 
and  he  will  do  it  afterwards.  When  at  length  he  is  constrained  to 
part  with  some  sins,  others  are  kept  as  right-hands  or  right-eyes. 
Nay,  when  he  is  so  pressed,  that  he  must  needs  say  before  the  Lord, 
he  is  willing  to  part  with  all  his  idols,  yet  how  long  will  his  heart 
give  the  lie  to  his  tongue,  and  prevent  the  execution  of  it  1 

"  Thirdly,  There  is  in  the  Will  of  man  a  natural  proneness  to 
evil.  Men  are  naturally  '  bent  to  backsliding  from  God :'  they  hang 
(as  the  word  is)  towards  backsliding.  Leave  the  unrenewed  Will 
to  itself,  it  will  choose  sin  and  reject  holiness  ;  and  that  as  certainly 
as  water  poured  on  the  side  of  a  hill  will  run  downward  and  not  up- 
M'ard. 

"  L  Is  not  the  way  of  evil  the  first  way  wherein  the  children  of 
men  go  1  Do  not  their  inclinations  plainly  appear  on  the  wrong 
-ide,  while  they  have  not  cunning  to  hide  them  1  As  soon  as  it  ap- 
pears we  are  reasonable  creatures,  it  appears  we  are  sinful  creatures. 
-  Foolishness  is  bound  in  the  heart  of  a  child,  till  the  rod  of  correc- 
tion diives  it  from  him.'  It  is  hound  in  the  heart,  woven  into  our 
'  ery  nature  ;  nor  will  the  knots  loose  ;  they  must  be  broke  asunder 
by  strokes.  Words  will  not  do  ;  the  rod  must  be  taken  to  drive  it 
away.  Not  that  the  rod  of  itself  will  do  this  :  the  sad  experience  o!^ 
many  parents  testifies  the  contrary.  And  Solomon  himself  tells 
you,  '  Though  thou  shouldst  bray  a  fool  in  a  mortar,  yet  will  not  his 
Ibolishness  depart  from  him.'  But  the  rod  is  an  ordinance  of  God 
appointed  for  that  end  ;  which,  hke  the  word,  is  made  effectual  by 
'he  Spirit's  accompanying  his  own  ordinance. 

'•2.  How  easily  men  are  led  into  sin  !  Persuaded  to  evil,  though 
not  to  good.  Those  whom  the  word  cannot  draw  to  holiness,  Satan 
leads  to  wickedness  at  his  pleasure.  To  learn  doing  ill,  is  always 
easy  to  the  unrenewed  man  :  but  to  learn  to  do  good,  is  as  difficult  as 
for  '  the  Ethiopian  to  change  his  skin.'  Were  the  will  evenly  poised 
between  good  and  evil,  one  might  be  embraced  with  as  much  ease 
as  the  other.  But  experience  testifies  it  is  not :  yea,  the  experience 
of  all  ages.  How  often  did  the  Israelites  forsake  the  Almighty  God, 
and  doat  upon  the  idols  of  the  nations  ?    But  did  ever  one  of  those 

Hh2 


3G0  THE  doctrijNe  of  [part  vit. 

nations  forsake  their  idols,  and  grow  fond  of  the  God  of  Israeli 
No,  no.  Though  man  is  naturally  given  to  change,  it  is  but  from 
evil  to  evil,  not  from  evil  to  good.  Surely  then  the  will  of  man, 
stands  not  in  equal  balance,  but  has  a  cast  on  the  wiong  side. 

"  3.  Consider  how  men  go  on  still  in  tl>e  way  of  sin,  till  they  meet 
with  a  stop  from  another  hand  than  their  own.  '  I  hid  me,  and  he 
went  on  frowardly  in  the  way  of  his  own  heart.'  If  God  withdraws 
his  restraining  hand,  man  is  in  no  doubt  which  way  to  ctoose.  For 
the  way  of  sin  is  '  the  way  of  his  heart :'  his  heart  naturally  lies  that 
way.  As  long  as  God  suffereth  them,  all  nations  'walk  in  their  own" 
way.'  The  natural  man  is  so  fixed  in  evil,  that  there  needs  no  more 
TO  show  he  is  off  of  God's  way,  than  to  say,  he  is  upon  his  own. 

"  Fourthly.  There  is  a  natural  contrariety,  a  direct  opposition  in 
the  will  of  man  to  God  himself  '  The  carnal  mind  is  enmity  against 
God  :  it  is  not  subject  to  the  law  of  God,  neither  can  be.' 

"  I  have  a  charge  against  every  unregenerate  man  and  woman^ 
to  be  proved  by  the  testimony  of  Scripture,  and  their  own  con- 
science :  namely,  that  whether  they  have  the  forn>  of  religion  or  noty 
ihey  are  heart-enemies  to  God ;  to  the  Son  of  Gody  to  the  Spirit  ot 
God,  and  to  the  law  of  God.  Hear  this,  all  ye  careless  souls,  that 
live  at  ease  in  your  natural  state. 

"1.  Ye  are  enemies  to  God  in  your  mind.  Ye  are  not  as  yet  re- 
conciled to  him.  The  natural  emnity  is  not  slain,  though  perhaps 
it  lies  hid,  and  ye  do  not  perceive  it.  Every  natural  man  is  an  enemy 
TO  God,  as  he  is  revealed  in  his  word  ;  to  an*  infinitely  holy,  just, 
powerful,  and  true  Being.  In  effect,  men  are  naturally  '  haters  of 
God  :'  and  if  they  could,  they  would  certainly  make  him  anolhei 
than  what  he  is. 

"To  convince  you  of  this,  let  me  propose  a  few  queries,  (1.) 
How  are  your  hearts  affected  to  the  infinite  holiness  of  God  ?  If  ye 
rtre  not  'partakers  of  his  holiness,'  ye  cannot  be  reconciled  to  it. 
The  heathens,  finding  they  were  not  like  God  in  holiness,  made  theiv 
gods  like  themselves  in  filthiness  ;  and  thereby  discovered  what  sort 
of  a  god  the  natural  man  would  have.  God  is  holy.  Can  an  un- 
holy creature  love  his  unspotted  holiness  ?  Nay,  it  is  '  the  righteous- 
only  that  can  'give  thanks  at  the  remembrance  of  his  holiness.* 
God  is  light :  can  creatures  of  darkness,  and  that  walk  in  darkness, 
rejoice  therein  1  Nay,  '  every  one  that  doeth  evil  hateth  the  light. 
For  what  communion  hath  light  with  darkness?'  (2.)  How  arc 
your  hearts  affected  to  the  justice  of  God?  There  is  not  a  man 
who  is  Avedded  to  his  sins,  but  would  be  content  with  the  blood  ot 
his  body,  to  blot  that  letter  out  of  the  name  of  God.  Can  the  male- 
factor love  his  condemning  judge  ?  Or  an  unjustified  sinner  a  jusr 
God  1  No,  he  cannot.  And  hence,  since  men  cannot  get  the  doc- 
trine of  his  justice  blotted  out  of  the  Bible,  yet  it  is  such  an  eye-sore 
to  them,  that  they  strive  to  blot  it  out  of  their  minds :  they  ruin 
themselves  by  presuming  on  his  mercy,  'saying  in  their  heart,  the 
Lord  will  not  do  good,  neither  will  he  do  evil.'  (3.)  How  are  yt 
effected  to  tiie  Omniscience  and  Omnipresence  of  God  ?     Men  na^ 


VART  VII.]  ORIGINAL  BIN.  $G7 

Rurally  would  rather  have  a  blind  idol,  than  an  all-seeing  God,  and 
therefore  do  what  they  can,  as  Adam  did,  to  '  hide  themselves  fronik 
the  presence  of  the  Lord.'  They  no  more  love  an  Omniscient  God, 
than  the  thief  loves  to  have  the  judge  witness  to  his  evil  deeds.  (4.) 
How  are  ye  aifected  to  the  truth  of  God  1  How  many  hope  that 
God  will  not  be  true  to  his  word  1  There  are  thousands  that  hear 
the  gospel,  ajid  hope  to  be  saved,  who  never  experienced  the  New 
Birth,  nor  do  at  all  concern  themselves  in  that  question,  whether 
tiiey  are  born  again  or  not.  Our  Lord's  words  are  plain  and  peremp- 
tory, '  Except  a  man  be  born  again,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of 
God.'  What  then  are  such  hopes,  but  real  hopes  that  God  will  recall 
his  word,  and  that  Christ  will  prove  a  false  prophet  1  (5.)  How  arc 
they  affected  to  the  power  of  God?  None  but  new  creatures  can 
love  him  for  it.  Every  natural  man  would  contribute  to  the  building 
another  Tower  of  Babel,  to  hem  it  in.  On  these  grounds,  I  declare 
every  unrenewed  man  an  enemy  to  God. 

"2.  Ye  are  enemies  to  the  Son  of  God;  that  enmity  to  Christ  is 
in  your  hearts,  which  would  have  made  you  join  the  '  husbandmen, 
who  killed  the  heir,  and  cast  him  out  of  the  vineyard.'  '  Am  I  a 
dog,'  ye  will  say,  to  have  so  treated  my  dear  Saviour  ?  So  said 
Hazael,  in  another  case.  But  how  did  he  act  1  Many  call  him 
dear  ;  to  whom  their  sins  are  ten  times  dearer  than  their  Saviour. 
He  is  no  otherwise  dear  to  them,  than  as  tliey  abuse  his  death,  for 
the-peaceable  enjoyment  of  their  sins  :  that  they  may  live  as  they 
iist  in  this  world  ;  and  when  they  die  be  kept  out  of  hell.  To  con- 
vince you  of  this  1  will  lay  before  you  the  enmity  of  your  hearts 
against  Christ  in  all  his  offices. 

"  I.  Every  unregenerate  man  is  an  enemy  to  Christ  in  his  pro- 
phetic office.     For  evidence  of  this,  consider, 

"1.  The  entertainments  he  meets  with,  when  he  comes  to  teach 
souls  inwardly  by  his  Spirit.  Men  do  what  they  can  to  stop  their 
ears,  that  they  may  not  hear  his  voice.  They  '  always  resist  the 
Holy  Ghost:'  they 'desire  not  the  knowledge  of  his  ways.'  The 
old  calumny  is  tbrown  upon  him  again,  '  He  is  mad :'  why  hear  ye 
liim  ]  '  The  spirit  of  bondage'  is  accounted  by  many  mere  distrac- 
tion and  melancholy  :  men  thus  blaspheming  God's  work,  because 
they  themselves  are  beside  themselves,  and  cannot  judge  of  those 
)natters. 

"  2.  Consider  the  entertainment  he  meets  with  when  he  comes  to 
teach  men  outwardly  by  his  word. 

"  (I.)  His  written  word  the  Bible,  is  slighted.  Many  layby  their 
Bibles  with  their  Sunday  clothes.  Alas  !  The  dust  about  your 
Bibles  is  a  witness  of  the  enmity  of  your  hearts  against  Christ  as 
prophet.  And  of  those  who  read  them  oftener,  how  few  are  there 
that  read  them  as  the  word  of  the  Lord  to  their  souls  in  particular, 
so  as  to  keep  up  communion  with  God  therein  1  Hence  they  are 
strangers  to  the  solid  comfort  of  the  Scriptures  ;  and  if  at  any  time 
t4iey  are  dejected,  it  is  somethuig  else,  and  not  the  word  of  God,, 
which  revives  their  drooping  spirits. 


.3t)b  niB   DOCTBIJS'E   OF  [PART  VII- 

"  (2.)  Christ's  word  preached  is  despised.  Men  can  without  re- . 
morse  make  to  themselves  one  silent  sabbath  after  another.  And, 
alas,  when  they  '  tread  his  courts,'  how  little  reverence  and  awe  oi' 
God  appear  on  their  spirits  !  Many  stand  as  -brazen  walls. before 
the  word,  on  whom  it  makes  no  breach  at  all.  Nay,  not  a  few  are 
growing  worse  and  worse,  notwithstanding  'precept  upon  precept.' 
What  tears  of  blood  are  sufficient  to  lament  this  ?  Remember,  we 
are  but  the  '  voice  of  one  crying.'  The  speaker  is  in  heaven.  Yet 
ye  refuse  him  that  speaketh,  and  prefer  the  prince  of  darkness  be- 
fore the  Prince  of  Peace.  A  dismal  darkness  overspread  the  world 
by  Adam's  fail,  more  terrible  than  if  the  sun  and  moon  had  been  ex- 
tinguished. And  it  must  have  covered  us  eternally,  had  not  '  the 
grace  of  God  appeared'  to  dispel  it.  But  we  flee  from  it,  and,  like  the 
wild  beasts,  lay  ourselves  '  down  in  our  dens.'  Such  is  the  enmity 
of  the  hearts  of  men,  against  Christ  in  his  prophetic  office. 

"  II.  The  natural  man  is  an  enemy  to  Christ  in  his  priestly  office. 
He  is  appointed  of  the  Father  'a  priest  for  ever,'  that  by  his  sacri- 
rice  and  intercession  alone,  sinners  may  have  access  to,  and  peace 
with  God.  But  «  Christ  crucified'  is  ever  a  stumbling-block  and 
foolishness  to  the  unregenerate  part  of  mankind. 

"None  of  Adam's  children  naturally  incline  to  receive  the  bless- 
ing in  borrowed  robes,  but  would  always  climb  up  to  heaven  on  a 
thread  spun  Out  of  their  own  bowels.  They  look  on  God  as  a  great 
Master,  and  themselves  as  his  servants,  they  must  work  and  win 
heaven  as  their  wages.  Hence  when  conscience  awakes,  they  think 
that,  to  be  saved,  they  must  answer  the  demands  of  the  law  ;  '  serve 
God  as  well  as  they  can,'  and  pray  for  mercy  wherein  they  come 
short.  And  thus  many  come  to  duties,  that  never  come  out  of  them 
to  Christ.  . 

"  indeed  the  natural  man  going  to  God. in  duties,  will  continually 
be  found,  either  to  go  without  a  Mediator,  or  with  more  mediators 
than  one.  Nature  is  blind,  and  therefore  venturous  :  it  puts  men  on 
going  immediately  to  God  without  Christ.  Converse  with  many, 
hearers  of  the  gospel  on  their  hopes  of  salvation,  and  the  name  of 
Christ  will  scarcely  be  heard  from  their  mouth.  Ask  them  how  they 
think  to  find  the  pardon  of  sin  *?  They  say,  they  look  for  mercy,  be- 
cause God  is  a  merciful  God  :  and  this  is  all  they  have  to  trust  in. 
Others  look  for  mercy  for  Christ's  sake.  But  how  do  they  know 
Christ  will  take  their  plea  in  hand  1  Why  they  pray,  mourn,  con- 
fess, and  have  great  desires.  So  they  have  something  of  their  own 
to  recommned  them  to  him.  They  were  never  made  'poor  in  spirit,' 
and  brought  empty-handed  to  God,  to  lay  the  stress  of  all  his  atoning 
blood. 

"  III.  The  natural  man  is  an  enemy  to  Christ  in  his  kingly  office. 

"  How  unwilling  are  natural  men  to  submit  to  the  laws  and  disci- 
pline of  his  kingdom  !  However  they  may  be  brought  to  some  out- 
ward submission  to  the  King  of  Saints,  yet  sin  always  retains  its' 
ilirone  in  their  hearts,  and  they  are  '  serving  divers  lusts  and  plea- 
:Jures.'    None  but  those  in  whom  Christ  is  formed,  do  really  put  the 


PART  Vll.J  ORIGINAL   S1IN-.  3Q\> 

crown  on  his  head.  None  but  these  receive  the  kingdom  of  Christ 
within  them,  and  set  up  and  put  down  their  souls  as  he  will.  As  for 
others,  any  lord  should  sooner  liave  the  rule  over  them  than  the 
Lord  of  Glory.  They  kindly  entertain  his  enemies,  and  will  never 
absolutely  resign  themselves  to  his  government.  Thus  you  see,  the 
natural  man  is  an  enemy  to  Jesus  Christ  and  all  his  offices. 

"3.  Ye  are  enemies  to  the  Spirit  oi  God;  he  is  the  Spirit  of  Ho- 
liness. The  natural  n)an  is  unholy,  and  loves  to  be  so  :  and  there- 
fore '  resists  the  Holy  Ghost.'  '  The  work  of  the  Spirit  is  to  con- 
vince the  world  of  sin,  righteousness,  and  judgment.'  But,  Oh ! 
how  do  men  strive  to  ward  off  these  convictions,  as  they  would  a 
blow  that  threatened  their  life  !  If  the  Spirit  dart  them  in  so  that 
they  cannot  avoid  them,  does  not  the  heart  say,  '  Hast  thou  found 
me,  O  mine  enemy  '?  And  indeed  they  treat  him  as  an  enemy,  doing 
their  utmost  to  stifle  their  convictions,  and  to  murder  these  harbin- 
gers that  come  to  prepare  the  way  of  the  Lord  in  the  soul.  Some 
fill  their  hands  with  business,  to  put  convictions  out  of  their  head, 
as  Cain  who  fell  to  building  a  city.  Some  put  them  off  with  fair 
promises,  as  Felix  did  ;  some  sport  or  sleep  them  away.  And  how 
can  it  be  otherwise  1  For  it  is  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  to  sub- 
due lusts  and  burn  up  corruption.  How  then  can  he  whose  iusty 
are  dear  as  his  life,  fail  of  being  an  enemy  to  him  ? 

"  Lastly,  Ye  are  enemies  to  the  law  of  God.  Though  the  natu- 
ral man  desires  to  be  under  the  law^  as  a  covenant  of  works,  yet  as  it 
is  a  iTile  of  hie,  he  '  is  not  subject  to  it,  neither  indeed  can  be.' 
For,  \.  Every  natural  man  is  wedded  to  some  sin,  which  he  cannot 
part  with.  And  as  he  cannot  bring  up  his  inclinations  to  the  law,  he 
would  fain  biing  down  the  law  to  his  inclinations.  And  this  is  a 
plain  standing  evidence  of  the  enmity  of  his  heart  against  it.  2.  The 
law  set  home  on  the  awakened  conscience  in  its  spirituality,  irri- 
tates corruption.  It  is  as  oil  to  the  fire,  which,  instead  of  quench- 
ing, makes  it  flame  the  more.  '  When  the  commandment  comes, 
sin  revives.'  What  reason  can  be  assigned  for  this,  but  the  natural 
enmity  of  the  heart  against  the  holy  law  ?  We  conclude  then,  that 
the  unregenerate  are  heart  enemies  to  God,  his  Son,  his  Spirit,  and 
his  law  :  that  there  is  a  natural  contrariety,  opposition,  and  enmity 
in  the  will  of  man,  to  God  himself  and  his  holy  will. 

"  Fifthly.  The  unrenewed  will  is  wholly  perverse,  in  reference 
to  the  end  of  man.  Man  is  merely  a  dependent  being;  having  no 
existence  or  goodness  originally  from  himself:  but  all  he  has  is  from 
God,  as  the  first  cause  and  spring  of  all  perfection,  natural  and  moral. 
Dependence  is  woven  into  his  very  nature;  so  that  should  God 
withdraw  from  him,  he  would  sink  into  nothing.  Since  then  what- 
ever man  is,  he  is  of  him,  surely  whatever  he  is,  he  should  be  to  him  ; 
as  the  waters  which  came  out  of  the  sea,  return  thither  again. 
And  thus  man  was  created  looking  directly  to  God,  as  his  last  end: 
]jut  falling  into  sin,  he  fell  off  from  God,  and  turned  into  himself 
Now  this  infers  a  total  apostacy  and  universal  corruption  in  man. 
For  where  the  last  end  is  changed,  there  can  be  no  real  goodnesS; 


370  1*HE    DOCTKIAE    OF  [PABT  Vll, 

And  this  is  the  case  of  all  men  in  their  natural  state  :  they  seek  not 
God,  but  themselves.  Hence  though  many  lair  shreds  of  morality 
are  among  them,  yet  'there  is  none  that  doth  good,  no,  not  one.' 
For  though  some  of  them  run  well,  they  are  still  off  the  way ;  they 
never  aim  at  the  right  mark.  Whithersoever  they  move,  they  can- 
not move  beyond  the  circle  of  self.  They  seek  themselves,  they  act 
for  themselves ;  their  natural,  civil,  and  religious  actions,  from  what> 
ever  spring  they  come,  do  all  run  into,  and  meet  in  this  dead  sea. 

"Most  men  are  so  far  from  making  God  their  end  in  their  natural 
and  civil  actions,  that  he  is  not  in  all  their  thoughts.  They  eat 
and  drink  for  no  higher  end,  than  their  own  pleasure  and  necessity. 
Nor  do  the  drops  of  sweetness  God  has  put  into  the  creatures  raise 
their  soul  toward  that  ocean  of  delights  that  are  in  the  Creator. 
And  what  are  the  natural  man's  civil  actions,  such  as  buying,  selling, 
working,  hut  fruit  for  himself?  Yea,  self  is  the  highest  end  of  un- 
regenerate  men,  even  their  religious  actions.  '  They  perform  duties 
for  a  name ;  for  some  worldly  interest ;  or,  at  best,  in  order  to  escape 
from  hell.  They  seek  not  God  at  all,  but  for  their  own  interest ; 
so  that  God  is  only  the  means,  and  self  their  end. 

"  Thus  have  I  given  a  rude  draught  of  man's  will  in  his  natural 
state,  drawn  from  Scripture  and  our  own  experience.  Now  since 
all  must  be  wrong,  where  the  understanding  and  will  are  so  coriupt, 
I  shall  briefly  despatch  what  remains. 

"III.  The  affections  are  corrupted:  wholly  disordered  and  dis- 
tempered. They  are  like  an  unruly  horse,  that  either  will  not  re- 
ceive, or  violently  runs  away  with  the  rider.  Man's  heart  is  naturally 
3  mother  of  abominations  :  '  For  from  within,  out  of  the  heart  of 
men,  proceed  evil  thoughts,  adulteries,  fornications,  murders,  thefts, 
covetousness.'  The  natural  man's  affections  are  wholly  misplacec^  ; 
he  is  a  spiritual  monster.  His  heart  is,  where  his  feet  should  be, 
fixed  on  earth  :  his  heels  are  hfted  up  against  heaven,  which  his 
heart  should  be  set  on  :  his  face  is  towards  hell,  and  his  back  to- 
ward heaven.  He  loves  what  he  should  hate,  and  hates  what  he 
should  love  ;  joys  in  what  he  ought  to  mourn  for,  and  mourns  for 
what  he  should  rejoice  in;  glories  in  his  shame,  and  is  ashamed  of  his 
glory  ;  abhors  what  he  should  desire,  and  desires  what  he  should 
abhor.  If  his  affections  are  set  on  lawful  objects,  they  are  either 
excessive  or  defective.  These  objects  have  either  too  little  of  them 
or  too  much.     But  sjiiritual  things  have  always  too  little. 

"  Here  is  a  threefold  cord  against  heaven,  not  easily  broken,  a 
blind  mind,  a  perverse  will,  disordered  affections.  The  mind  swelled 
with  pride,  says,  the  man  should  not  stoop  :  the  will  opposite  to  the 
will  of  God,  says,  he  will  not :  and  the  corrupt  affections,  rising 
against  the  Lord,  in  defence  of  the  corrupt  will,  say,  he  shall  not. 
And  thus  we  stand  out  against  Godj  till  we  are  created  anew  by 
Christ  Jesus. 

"  IV.  The  conscience  is  corrupt  and  defiled.  It  cannot  do  its 
work,  but  according  to  the  light  it  hath  to  work  by.  Wherefore 
seeing  « the  natural  man  discerneth  not  spiritual  things,'  his  con-. 


PART  VII.  J  ORIGINAL   SIN.  371 

Science  is  quite  useless  in  that  point.  It  may  indeed  check  for 
grosser  sins,  but  spiritual  sins  it  discerns  not.  Thus  it  will  fly  in  the 
iiace  of  many  for  drunkenness,  who  yet  have  a  profound  peace 
though  they  live  in  unbelief,  and  are  utter  strangers  to  spiritual  wor- 
ship and  the  life  of  faith.  And  the  light  of  his  conscience  being 
faint  and  languishing,  even  in  the  things  which  it  does  reach,  its 
incitements  to  duty,  and  struggles  against  sin  are  very  remiss 
and  easily  got  over.  But  there  is  also  a  false  light  in  the  dark 
mind,  which  often  '  calls  evil  good  and  good  evil.'  And  such 
a  conscience  is  like  a  blind  and  furious  horse,  which  violently  runs 
down  all  that  comes  in  his  way.  Indeed  whenever  conscience  is 
awakened  by  the  Spirit  of  Conviction,  it  will  rage  and  roar,  and 
put  the  whole  man  in  a  consternation.  It  makes  the  stiff  heart  to 
tremble,  and  the  knees  to  bow  ;  sets  the  eyes  a  weeping,  the  tongue 
a  confessing.  But  still  it  is  an  evil  conscience,  which  naturally  leads 
only  to  despair  :  and  will  do  it  effectually,  unless  either  sin  prevails 
over  it  to  lull  it  asleep,  as  in  the  case  of  Felix  :  or  the  blood  of  Christ 
prevail  over  it,  '  sprinkling  and  purging  it  from  dead  works.' 

"Thus  is  man  by  nature  wholly  corrupted.  But  whence  came 
this  total  corruption  of  our  nature  1  That  man's  nature  was  corrupt 
the  very  Heathens  perceived  :  but  how  sin  entered  they  could  not 
tell.  But  the  Scripture  is  very  plain  in  the  point.  '  By  one  man 
sin  entered  into  the  world.'  '  By  one  man's  disobedience  many  [all) 
were  made  sinners.'  Adam's  sin  corrupted  man's  nature,  and 
leavened  the  whole  lump  of  mankind.  We  putrefied  in  Adam  a? 
our  root.  The  root  was  poisoned,  and  so  the  branches  were  en- 
venomed. The  vine  turned  '  the  vine  of  Sodom,'  and  so  the  grapes 
became  '  grapes  of  gall.'  Adam  by  his  sin  became  not  only  guilty, 
hut  corrupt,  and  so  transmits  guilt  and  corruption  to  his  posterity. 
By  his  sin  he  stripped  himself  of  his  original  righteousness  and  cor- 
rupted himself  We  were  in  him  representatively,  as  our  moral  head  : 
we  were  in  him  seminally,  as  our  natural  head.  Hence  we  fell  in 
him  :  (as  Levi  'paid  tithes  when  in  the  loins  of  Abraham.')  '  By 
his  disobedience  we  were  made  sinners  :'  his  first  sin  is  imputed  to 
us.  And  we  are  left  without  that  original  righteousness,  which  be- 
ing given  to  him  as  a  common  person,  he  cast  off.  And  this  is  ne- 
cessarily followed  in  him  and  vis,  by  the  corruption  of  our  whole 
nature  :  righteousness  and  corruption  being  two  contraries,  one  of 
which  must  always  be  in  man.  And  Adam  our  common  father  being 
corrupt,  so  are  we  :  for  '  who  can  bring  a  clean  thing  out  of  an 
unclean  V 

"  It  remains  only  to  apply  this  doctrine.  And,  first,  for  informa- 
tion. Is  man's  nature  wholly  corrupted  ]  Then,  1 .  No  wonder 
the  grave  opens  its  devouring  mouth  for  us  as  soon  as  the  womb  has 
cast  us  forth.  For  we  are  all  in  a  spiritual  sense  dead-born  :  yea. 
and  filthy,  (Psalm  xiv.  3,)  noisome,  rank,  and  stinking,  as  a  corrupt 
thing  :  (so  the  word  imports.)  Let  us  not  complain  of  the  miseries 
we  are  exposed  to  at  our  entrance,  or  during  our  continuance  in  the 
world.     Here  is  the  venom  that  has  poisoned  all  the  springs  of 


372  THE    DOC'TRtNE   OF  [pABT  VIJ. 

earthly  enjoyments.     Tt  is  the  corruption  of  human  nature,  which 
brings  forth  ail  the  miseries  of  hfe. 

2.  "Behold  here  as  in  a  glass,  the  spring  of  all  the  wickedness, 
profaneness,  and  formality  in  the  world.  Every  thing  acts  agreea- 
.bly  to  its  own  nature  ;  and  so  corrupt  man  acts  corruptly.  You 
need  not  wonder  at  the  sinfulness  of  your  own  heart  and  life,  nor  at 
the  sinfulness  and  perverseness  of  others.  If  a  man  be  crooked,  he 
cannot  but  halt ;  and  if  the  clock  be  set  wrong,  how  can  it  point 
the  hour  right  ? 

"  3.  See  here  why  sin  is  so  pleasant,  and  religion  such  a  burden 
to  men  :  sin  is  natural :  holiness  not  so.      Oxen  cannot  feed  in  the 
sea,  nor  fishes  in  the  fruitful  field.     A  swine  brought  into  a  palace 
would  prefer  the  mire.     And  corrupt  nature  tends  ever  to  impurity. 
"4.  Learn  from  hence  the  nature  and  necessity  of  regeneration. 
First,  the  nature  :  it  is  not  a.  partial  but  a  total  change.     Thy  whole 
nature  is  corrupted.     Therefore  the  Avhole  must  be  renewed.     i5// 
things  must  become  neio.     If  a  man  Avho  had  received  many  wounds, 
were  cured  of  all  but  one,  he  might  still  bleed  to  death.     It  is  not 
a  change  made  by  human  industry,  but  by  the  Almighty  Spirit  of 
God.     A  man  must  be  '  born  of  the  Spirit.'     Our  nature  is  corrupt, 
and  none  but  the  God  of  nature  can  change  it.     Man  may  pin  a  new 
life  to  an  old  heart,  but  he  can  never  change  the  heart.     Secondly, 
the  Necessity  :  it  is  absolutely  necessary  in  order  to  salvation.    'Ex- 
cept a  man  be  born  again,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God.'     No 
unclean  thing  can  enter  the  JVe?«  Jefusalem  :  but  thou  art  by  nature 
wholly  unclean.     Deceive  not  thyself:  no  mercy  of  God,  no  blood 
of  Christ,  will  bring  an  unregenerate  sinner  to  heaven.     For  God 
will  never  open  a  fountain  of  mercy  to  wash  away  his  own  holiness 
and  truth  :  nor  did  Christ  shed  his  precious  blood  to  blot  out  the 
truths  of  God.     Heaven:'  What  would  you  do  there,  who  are  not 
born  again  1     A  holy  head,  and  corrupt  members !     A  head  full  of 
treasures  of  grace,  members  filled  with  treasures  of  wickedness  ! 
Ye  are.no  ways  adapted  to  the  society  above,  more  than  beasts  to 
converse  with  men.     Could  the  unrenewed  man  go  to  heaven,  he 
would  go  to  it  no  otherwise  than  now  he  come's  to  the  duties  of  ho- 
liness, that  is,  leaving  his  heart  behind  him. 

"  We  may  apply  this  doctrine,  secondly,  for  lamentation.  Well 
may  we  lament  thy  case,  O  natural  man,  for  it  is  the  saddest  case 
one  can  be  in  out  of  hell.  It  is  time  to  lament  for  thee  ;  for  thou 
art  dead  already,  dead  while  thou  livest.  Thou  carriest  about  a  dead 
soul  in  a  living  body ;  and  because  thou  art  dead,  canst  not  lament 
thy  own  case.  Thou  hast  no  good  in  thee :  thy  soul  is  a  mass  of 
darkness,  rebellion,  and  vileness,  before  God.  Thou  canst  do  no 
good  :  thou  canst  do  nothing  but  sin.  For  thou  art  '  the  servant  of 
sin,'  and  therefore  free  from  righteousness  :  thou  dost  not,  canst  not 
meddle  with  it.  Thou  art  '  under  the  dominion  of  sin,'  a  dominion 
where  righteousness  can  have  no  place.  Thou  art  a  child  and  a 
servant  of  the  Devil,  as  long  as  thou  art  in  a  state  of  nature.  But  ^ 
to  prevent  any  mistake,  consider  that  Satan  hath  two  kinds  of  ser- 


rART    VII.]  ORIGINAL   SIJJ.  37^ 

vants.  There  are  some  employed,  as  it  were,  in  coarser  work. 
These  bear  the  Devil's  mark  in  their  foreheads,  having  no  form  of 
godliness,  not  so  much  as  performing  the  external  duties  of  religion, 
but  living  apparently  as  sons  of  earth,  only  minding  earthly  things. 
Whereas  others  are  employed  in  more  refined  work,  who  carry  his 
mark  in  their  right-hand,  which  they  can  and  do  hide  by  a  form  of 
religion,  from  the  view  of  the  world.  These  sacrifice  to  the  corrupt 
mind,  as  the  other  to  the  flesh.  Pride,  unbelief^  self-pleasing,  and 
the  like  spiritual  sins,  prey  on  their  corrupted,  wholly  corrupted 
souls.  Both  are  servants  of  the  same  house,  equally  void  of  right- 
eousness. 

"  Indeed  how  is  it  possible  thou  shouldst  be  able  to  do  any  thing 
good,  whose  nature  is  wholly  corrupt  ?  '  Can  an  evil  tree  bring  forth 
good  fruit  V  '  Do  men  gather  grapes  of  thorns  V  If  then  thy  nature 
be  totally  evil,  all  thou  dost  is  certainly  so  too, 

"  Hear,  O  sinner,  what  is  thy  case ;  innumerable  sins  compass  thee 
about :  floods  of  impurities  overwhelm  thee.  Sins  of  all  sorts  roll 
up  and  down  in  the  dead  sea  of  thy  soul;  where  no  good  can 
breathe,  because  of  the  corruption  there.  Thy  lips  are  unclean  : 
the  opening  of  thy  mouth  is  as  the  opening  of  a  grave,  full  of  stench 
and  rottenness.  Thy  natural  actioris  are  sin  :  for  <  when  ye  did  eat, 
and  when  ye  did  drink,  did  not  ye  eat  for  yourselves  and  drink  for 
yourselves  1'  (Zech.  vii.  6.)  Thy  civil  actions  are  sin.  Prov.  xxi. 
4.  '  The  ploughing  of  the  wicked  is  sin.'  Thy  religious  actions  are 
sin,  *  The  sacrifice  of  the  wicked  is  an  abomination  to  the  Lord.' 
The  thoughts  and  imaginations  of  thy  heart  are  '  only  evil  continu- 
ally.' A  deed  may  be  soon  done,  a  word  soon  spoken,  a  thought  pass ; 
but  each  of  these  is  an  item  in  thy  accounts.  O  sad  reckoning  ! 
As  many  thoughts,  words,  actions,  so  many  more  sins :  and  the 
longer  thou  livest,  thy  accounts  swell  the  more.  Should  a  tear  be 
dropped  for  every  sin,  thine  eyes  must  be  '  fountains  of  tears.'  For 
nothing  but  sin  comes  from  thee  :  thy  heart  frames  nothing  but  evil 
imaginations:  there  is  nothing  in  thy  life,  but  what  is  framed  by  thy 
heart :  therefore  there  is  nothing  in  thy  heart  or  life  but  evil. 

"  And  all  thy  religion,  if  thou  hast  any,  is  lost  labour,  if  thou  art 
not  born  again  ;  truly  then  thy  duties  are  sins.  Would  not  the  best 
wine  be  loathsome  in  a  foul  vessel'?  So  is  the  religion  of  an  unrege- 
uerate  man.  Thy  duties  cannot  make  thy  corrupt  soul  holy  ;  but 
thy  corrupt  heart  makes  them  unclean.  Thou  was  wont  to  di- 
vide thy  works  into  two  sorts  ;  to  count  some  good,  and  some  evil. 
But  thou  must  count  again,  and  put  all  under  one  head  ;  for  God 
writes  on  them  all.  Only  evil. 

«  And  thou  canst  not  help  tliyself.  What  canst  thou  do  to  take 
away  thy  sin,  who  art  wholly  corrupt  1  Will  mud  and  filth  wash  our 
rilthiness  ?  And  wilt  thou  purge  out  sin  by  sinning  1  Job  took  a  pot- 
sherd to  scrape  himself,  because  his  hands  were  as  full  of  boils  as  his 
body.  This  is  the  case  of  thy  corrupt  soul,  so  long  as  thou  art  in  a 
state  of  nature.  Thou  art  poor  indeed,  extremely  miserable  and 
poor :  thou  hast  bo  shelter  but  a  refuge  of  lies :  no  garment  for  thy 
Vql  9.— I  i 


374  THE    DOCTRINE   OF  [pART  VH 

soul  h\it  filthy  rags,  nothing  to  nourish  it  but  husks  that  cannot  sa- 
tisfy. More  than  that,  thou  hast  got  such  a  bruise  in  the  loins  of 
Adam,  that  thou  art  without  strength,  unable  to  do  any  thing.  Nay, 
more  than  all  this,  thou  canst  not  so  much  as  seek  aright,  but  liest 
helpless,  as  an  infant  exposed  in  the  open  field. 

"  O  that  ye  would  believe  this  sad  truth.  How  little  is  it  believed 
in  the  world  !  Few  are  concerned  to  have  their  evil  lives  reformed ; 
but  fewer  far,  to'have  their  evil  nature  changed.  Most  men  know 
not  what  they  are  ;  as  the  eye,  which  seeing  many  things,  never  sees 
itself.  But  until  ye  know  every  one  the  '  plague  of  his  own  heart,' 
there  is  no  hope  of  your  recovery.  Why  will  ye  not  believe  the 
plain  testimony  of  Scripture  ?  Alas  !  That  is  the  nature  of  your  dis- 
ease. '  Thou  knowest  not  that  thou  art  wretched,  and  miserable, 
and  poor,  and  blind,  and  naked.'  Lord,  open  their  eyes,  before 
they  lift  them  up  in  hell,  and  see  what  they  will  not  see  now  ! 

"  Meantime  let  us  have  a  special  eye  upon  the  corruption  and  shi 
of  our  nature.  What  avails  it  to  take  notice  of  other  sins,  while  this 
mother  sin  is  unnoticed  ?  This  is  a  weighty  point ;  in  speaking  to 
\vhich  I  shall, 

"1.  Point  at  some  evidences  of  men's  overlooking  the  sin  of  their 
nature.  As  (1.)  men's  being  so  confident  of  themselves,  as  if  they 
were  in  no  danger  of  gross  sins.  Many  would  take  heinously  such 
a  caution  as  Christ  gave  his  apostles,  '  Take  heed  of  surfeiting  and 
drunkenness.'  They  v/ould  be  ready  to  cry  out,  Am  I  a  dog  1  It 
would  raise  the  pride  of  their  hearts,  not  their  fear  and  trembling. 
And  all  this  is  a  proof,  that  they  know  not  the  corruption  of  their 
own  nature.  (2.)- Untenderness  toward  them  that  fall.  Many  In 
this  case  cast  off"  all  bowels  of  compassion  :  a  plain  proof  that  they 
do  not  know  or  '  consider  themselves,  lest  they  also  be  tempted.' 
Grace  indeed  does  make  men  zealous  against  sin,  in  others  as  well 
as  in  themselves.  But  eyes  turned  inward  to  the  corruption  of  na- 
ture, clothe  them  with  pity  and  compassion,  and  fill  them  with  thank- 
fulness, that  they  were  not  the  persons  left  to  be  such  spectacles  of 
human  frailty.  (3.)  Men's  venturing  so  boldly  on  temptation,  in 
confidence  of  their  coming  oft'  fairly.  Were  they  sensible  of  the 
corruption  of  their  nature,  they  would  beware  of  entering  on  the 
Devil's  ground  ;  as  one  girt  about  with  bags  of  gunpowder,  would 
be  loth  to  walk  where  sparks  of  fire  were  flying. 

"  2.  I  shall  mention  a  few  things,  in  which  ye  should  have  a  spe- 
cial eye  to  the  sin  of  your  nature.  (1.)  In  your  application  to 
Christ.  When  you  are  with  the  Physician,  O  forget  not  this  disease. 
They  never  yet  knew  their  errand  to  Christ,  who  went  not  to  him 
for  the  sin  of  their  nature  ;  for  his  blood  to  take  away  the  guilt,  and 
his  Spirit  to  break  the  power  of  it.  Though  ye  should  lay  before 
him  a  catalogue  of  sins,  which  might  reach  from  earth  to  heaven,  yet 
if  you  omit  this,  you  have  forgot  the  best  part  of  the  errand  a  poor 
sinner  has  to  the  Physician  of  souls.  (2.)  Have  a  special  eye  to  it 
in  your  repentance.  If  you  would  repent  indeed,  let  the  streams 
lead  you  up  to  the  fountain,  and  mourn  over  your  corrupt  nature,  a^ 


TART  VII.]  ORIGINAL   SIIS.  37u 

the  cause  of  all  sin,  in  heart,  word,  and  work.  '  Against  thee,  thee 
only  have  I  sinned,  and  done  this  evil  in  thy  sight.  Behold  I  was 
shapen  in  iniquity,  and  in  sin  did  my  mother  conceive  me.'  (3.) 
Have  a  special  eye  to  it  in  your  mortification.  '  Crucify  the  flesh 
with  its  affections  and  desires.'  It  is  the  root  of  bitterness  which 
must  be  struck  at;  else  we  labour  in  vain.  In  vain  do  we  go  about 
to  purge  the  streams,  if  we  are  at  no  pains  about  the  muddy  foun- 
tain, (i.)  Ye  are  to  eye  this  in  your  daily  walk.  He  that  would 
walk  uprightly,  must  have  one  eye  upicard  to  Jesus  Christ,  another 
Inward  to  the  corruption  of  his  own  nature. 

"  III.  I  shall  offer  some  reasons,  why  we  should  especially  ob- 
serve the  sin  of  our  nature.  1.  Because  of  all  sins  it  is  the  most  ex- 
tensive and  diffusive.  It  goes  through  the  whole  man  and  spoils  all. 
Other  sins  mar  particular  parts  of  the  image  of  God  ;  but  this  de- 
faces the  whole.  It  is  the  poison  of  the  old  serpent  cast  into  the 
fountain,  and  so  infects  every  action,  every  breathing  of  the  soul. 

"  2.  It  is  the  cause  of  all  particular  sins,  both  in  our  hearts  and 
lives.  <  Out  of  the  heart  of  man  proceed  evil  thoughts,  adulteries,' 
and  all  other  abominations.  It  is  the  bitter  fountain,  and  particular 
lusts  are  but  rivulets  running  from  it,  which  bring  forth  into  the  life  a 
part  only,  not  the  whole  of  what  is  within. 

"  3.  It  is  virtually  all  sins  ;  for  it  is  the  seed  of  all,  which  want  but 
the  occasion  to  set  up  their  heads.  Hence  it  is  called  '  a  body  of 
death,'  as  consisting  of  the  several  members  which  constitute  that 
'body  of  sins,'  (Col.  ii.  11,)  whose  life  lies  in  spiritual  death.  It  is 
the  cursed  ground,  fit  to  bring  forth  all  manner  of  noxious  weeds. 
Never  did  every  sin  appear  in  the  conversation  of  the  vilest  wretch  that 
ever  lived.  But  look  into  thy  nature,  and  thou  mayest  see  all  and 
every  sin  in  the  root  thereof  There  is  a  fulness  of  all  unrighteous- 
ness there  :  atheism,  idolatry,  adultery,  murder.  Perhaps  none  of 
these  appear  to  thee  in  thy  heart:  but  there  is  more  in  that  unfathom- 
able depth  of  wickedness  than  thou  knowest. 

"  4.  The  sin  of  our  nature  is  of  all  sins  the  most  fixed  and  abiding. 
Sinful  actions  are  transient,  though  the  guilt  and  stain  of  them  maj 
remain.  But  the  corruption  of  nature  passes  not  away.  It  remains 
in  its  full  power,  by  night  and  by  day,  at  all  times,  till  nature  is  changed 
by  converting  grace. 

"  You  may  observe  three  things  in  the  corrupt  heart.  (1.)  There 
is  the  corrupt  nature,  the  evil  bent  of  the  heart,  whereby  men  are  unapt 
for  all  good,  and  fitted  for  all  evil.  (2.)  There  are  particular  lusts  or 
dispositions  of  that  corrupt  nature,  such  as  pride,  passion,  covetous- 
ness.  (3.)  There  is  one  of  these  stronger  than  all  the  rest,  '  The  sin 
which  doth  so  easily  beset  us.'  So  that  the  river  divides  into  many 
streams,  whereof  one  is  greater  than  the  rest.  The  corruption  of 
nature  is  the  river-head,  which  has  many  particular  lusts  wherein  it 
runs  ;  but  it  mainly  disburdens  itself  into  that  which  we  call  the  pre- 
dojninant  sin.  But  as  in  some  rivers  the  main  stream  runs  not 
always  in  the  same  channel,  so  the  besetting  sin  may  change,  as  lust 
in  youth  may  be  succeeded  by  covetousness  in  old  age.     Now  what 


37G  DOCTRINE  OF   ORIGINAL   SI??-,  [PART  Vlf- 

does  it  avail,  to  reform  in  other  things,  while  the  reigning  sin  retains 
its  full  power  1  What  if  a  particular  sin  be  gone  1  If  the  sin  of  our  na- 
ture keep  the  throne,  it  will  set  up  another  in  its  stead  :  as  when  a 
water-course  is  stopped  in  one  place,  it  will  break  forth  in  another. 
Thus  some  cast  off  their  prodigality  ;  but  covetousness  comes  in  it? 
stead.  Some  quit  their  profaneness;  but  the  same  stream  runs  in  the 
other  channel  of  self-righteousness. 

"  That  you  may  have  a  full  view  of  the  sin  of  your  nature,  I  would 
recommend  to  you  three  things.  (1.)  Study  to  know  the  spirituality 
and  extent  of  the  law  of  God  ;  for  that  is  the  glass  wherein  you  may 
see  yourselves.  (2.)  Observe  your  hearts  at  all  times  ;  but  especially 
under  temptation.  Temptation  is  a  fire  that  brings  up  the  scum  of 
the  unregenerate  heart.  (3.)  Go  to  God  through  Jesus  Christ,  for 
illumination  by  his  Spirit.  Say  unto  him,  '  What  1  know  not,  teach 
thou  me  :"  and  be  willing  to  take  in  light  from  the  word.  It  is  by  the 
word  the  Spirit  teacheth  ;  but  unless  he  teach,  all  other  teaching  is 
to  little  purpose.  You  will  never  see  yourself  aright,  till  he  light  hi? 
candle  in  your  breast.  Neither  the  fulness  and  glory  of  Christ,  nor 
the  corruption  and  vileness  of  our  nature,  ever  were  or  can  be  rightly 
learned,  but  where  the  Spirit  of  Christ  is  the  teacher. 

"  To  conclude.  Let  the  consideration  of  what  has  been  said,  com- 
mend Christ  to  you  all.  Ye  that  are  brought  out  of  your  natural 
state,  be  humble  :  still  coming  to  Christ,  still  cleaving  to  him,  for  the 
purging  out  what  remains  of  your  natural  corruption.  •  Ye  that  are 
yet  in  your  natural  state,  what  will  ye  do  ?  Ye  must  die  :  ye  must 
stand  at  the  judgment  seat  of  God.  Will  you  lie  down  and  sleep 
another  night  at  ease  in  this  case  ?  See,  ye  do  it  not.  Before  another 
day  you  may  be  set  before  his  dreadful  tribunal,  in  the  grave-clothes 
of  your  corrupt  state,  and  your  vile  souls  cast  into  the  pit  of  destruc- 
tion, to  be  for  ever  buried  out  of  God's  sight.  For  I  testify  unto 
you,  there  is  no  peace  with  God,  no  pardon,  n»  heaven  for  you  in 
this  state.  There  is  but  a  step  betwixt  you  and  eternal  destruction 
from  the  presence  of  the  Lord.  If  the  brittle  thread  of  life,  which 
may  be  broken  with  a  touch,  in  a  moment,  or  ever  you  are  aware. 
be  broken  while  you  are  in  this  state,  you  are  ruined  for  ever,  and 
without  remedy.  But  come  ye  speedily  to  Jesus  Christ.  He  hath 
cleansed  as  vile  souls  as  yours.  '  Confess  your  sins;'  and  he  will 
both  '  forgive  your  sins,  and  cleanse  you  from  all  unrighteousness >" 

Bristol,  ^^ig.  17,  1757. 


[  377  ] 

PREDESTINATION 

CALMLY  CONSIDERED. 


'  That  to  the  height  of  this  great  Argument, 
I  may  assert  Eternal  Providence, 
And  justify  the  Ways  of  God  to  Men." 

Milton. 


I.  I  AM  inclined  to  believe,  that  many  of  those  who  enjoy  the 
Jaith  which  worketh  by  love,  may  remember  some  time  when  the  pow- 
er of  the  Highest  wrought  upon  them  in  an  eminent  manner  ;  when 
the  voice  of  the  Lord  laid  the  mountains  low,  brake  all  the  rocks  in 
pieces,  and  mightily  shed  abroad  his  love  in  their  hearts,  by  the  Holy 
Ghost  given  unto  them.  And  at  that  time  it  is  certain,  they  had  no 
power  to  resist  the  grace  of  God.  They  were  then  no  more  able  to 
stop  the  course  of  that  torrent,  which  carried  all  before  it,  than  to 
stem  the  waves  of  the  sea  with  their  hand,  or  to  stay  the  sun  in  the 
midst  of  heaven. 

H.  And  the  children  of  God  may  continually  observe,  how  his  love 
leads  them  on  from  faith  to  faith;  with  what  tenderness  he  watches 
over  their  souls  ;  with  what  care  he  brings  them  back  if  they  go 
astray,  and  then  upholds  their  going  in  his  path,  that  their  footsteps 
may  not  slide.  They  cannot  but  observe  how  unwilling  he  is  to  let 
them  go  from  serving  him ;  and  how,  notwithstanding  the  stubborn- 
ness of  their  wills,  and  the  wildness  of  their  passions,  he  goes  on  iTi 
his  work,  conquering  and  to  conquer,  till  he  hath  put  all  his  enemies 
under  his  feet. 

HL  The  farther  this  work  is  carried  on  in  their  hearts,  the  more 
earnestly  do  they  cry  out,  "  Not  unto  us,  O  Lord,  but  unto  thy  name 
give  the  praise,  for  thy  mercy  and  for  thy  truth's  sake."  The  more 
deeply  are  they  convinced  that,  by  grace  we  are  saved  ;  not  of  works, 
lest  any  man  should  boast ;  that  we  are  not  pardoned  and  accepted 
with  God  for  the  sake  of  any  thing  we  have  done,  but  wholly  and 
solely  for  the  sake  of  Christ,  of  what  he  hath  done  and  suffered  for 
us.  The  more  assuredly  likewise  do  they  know,  that  the  condition 
of  this  acceptance  is  faith  alone  ;  before  which  gift  of  God  no  good 
work  can  be  done,  none  which  hath  not  in  it  the  nature  of  sin. 

IV.  How  easily  then  may  a  believer  infer,  from  what  he  hath  ex- 
perienced in  his  own  soul,  that  the  true  grace  of  God  always  works 
irresistibly  in  every  believer  ?  That  God  will  finish  wherever  he  has 
begun  this  work,  so  that  it  is  impossible  for  any  believer  to  fall  from 
grace  ?  And,  lastly,  that  the  reason  why  God  gives  this,  to  some  only, 
and  not  to  others,  is,  because  of  his  own  will,  without  any  previous 

1  i2 


37B  PREDESTINATION  CALMLY   CONSIDEREI). 

regard  either  to  their  faith  or  works,  he  hath  absolutely,  unconditionally 
predestinated  them  to  life,  before  the  foundation  of  the  world. 

V.  Agreeable  hereto,  in  the  Protestant  Confession  of  Faith,  drawi/ 
up  at  Paris,  in  the  year  1559,  we  have  these  words  :  (Article  12.) 

"  We  believe,  that  out  of  the  general  corruption  and  condem- 
nation, in  which  all  men  are  plunged,  God  draws  those  whom  in  his 
eternal  and  unalterable  counsel,  he  has  elected  by  his  own  goodness 
and  mercy,  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  without  considering  their 
works,  leaving  the  others  in  the  same  corruption  and  condemnation." 

VI.  To  the  same  effect  speak  the  Dutch  Divines  assembled  at 
Dort,  in  the  year  1618.     Their  words  are  :  (Art.  6.  et  seq.) 

"Whereas,  in  process  of  time,  God  bestowed  faith  on  some,  and 
not  on  others,  this  proceeds  from  his  eternal  Decree — According  to 
which,  he  softens  the  hearts  of  the  elect,  and  leaveth  them  that  are 
not  elect  in  their  wickedness  and  hardness. 

"  And  herein  is  discovered  the  difference  put  between  men  equally 
lost :  that  is  to  say,  the  decree  of  election  and  reprobation. 

"  Election  is  the  unchangeable  decree  of  God,  by  which,  before  the 
foundation  of  the  world,  he  hath  chosen,  in  Christ  unto  salvation,  a 
set  number  of  men.  This  election  is  one  and  the  same  of  all  which 
are  to  be  saved. 

"  Not  all  men  are  elected,  but  some  not  elected  ;  whom  God,  in 
his  unchangeable  good  pleasure,  hath  decreed,  to  leave  in  the  com- 
mon misery,  and  not  to  bestow  saving  faith  upon  them  ;  but  leaving 
them  in  their  own  ways,  at  last  to  condemn  and  punish  them  ever- 
lastingly for  their  unbelief,  and  also  for  their  other  sins.  And  this  is 
the  Decree  of  Reprobation.'* 

VII.  Likewise  in  the  Confession  of  Faith,  set  forth  by  the  Assem- 
bly of  English  and  Scotch  divines,  in  the  year  1646,  are  these  words  : 
(chap  3.) 

"  God  from  all  eternity  did  unchangeably  ordain  whatsoever  comes- 
to  pass. 

"  By  the  decree  of  God,  for  the  manifestation  of  liis  glory,  some 
men  and  angels  are  predestinated  unto  everlasting  life,  and  others 
fore-ordained  to  everlasting  death. 

"  These  angels  and  men,  thus  predestinated  and  fore-ordained,  are 
particularly  and  unchangeably  designed,  and  their  number  so  cer- 
tain and  definite,  that  it  cannot  be  either  increased  or  diminished. 

"  Those  of  mankind  that  are  predestinated  unto  Ufe,  God  before 
the  foundation  of  the  world,  hath  chosen  in  Christ  unto  everlasting 
glory,  without  any  foresight  of  faith  or  good  works. 

"  The  rest  of  mankind  God  was  pleased,  for  the  glory  of  his  sove- 
reign power  over  his  creatures,  to  pass  by,  and  to  ordain  them  to  dis- 
honour and  wrath." 

No  less  express  are  Mr.  Calvin's  Words  in  his  Christian  Institutions, 
(chap.  21,  sect.  1.) 

"  All  men  are  not  created  for  the  same  end  :  but  some  are  fore-or- 
dained to  eternal  life,  others  to  eternal  damnation.  So  according  as 
every  man  was  created  for  the  one  or  the  other,  we  say  he  was  elect- 


PREHESTINATION   CALMLY    CONSIDERED.  379 

i'd,  i.  e.  predestinated  to  life  ;  or  reprobated,  i.  e.  predestinated  to 
damnation." 

VIII.  Indeed  there  are  some  who  assert  the  decree  of  election, 
and  not  the  decree  of  reprobation.  They  assert  that  God  hath,  by 
a  positive  unconditional  decree,  chosen  some  to  life  and  salvation  : 
but  not  that  he  hath,  by  any  such  decree,  devoted  the  rest  of  mankind 
to  destruction.  These  are  they  to  whom  I  would  address  myself 
first.  And  let  me  beseech  you,  brethren,  by  the  mercies  of  God,  to 
lift  up  your  hearts  to  him,  and  to  beg  of  him  to  free  you  from  all  pre- 
possession, from  the  prejudices  even  of  your  tender  years,  and  from 
whatsoever  might  hinder  the  light  of  God  from  shining  in  upon  your 
souls.  Let  us  calmly  and  fairly  weigh  these  things,  in  the  balance  of 
the  sanctuary.  Atid  let  all  be  done  in  love  and  meekness  of  wisdom, 
as  becomes  those  who  are  fighting  under  one  Captain,  and  who  hum- 
bly hope  they  are  joint  heirs  through  him  of  the  glory  which  shall  be 
revealed. 

I  am  verily  persuaded,  that  in  the  uprightness  of  your  hearts,  you 
defend  the  decree  of  unconditional  election ;  even  in  the  same  up- 
rightness wherein  you  object  and  abhor  that  of  unconditional  repro- 
bation. But  consider,  1  entreat  you,  whether  you  are  consistent 
with  yourselves  :  consider  whether  this  election  can  be  separate  from 
reprobation ;  whether  one  of  them  does  not  imply  the  other,  so  that 
in  holding  one  you  must  hold  both. 

IX.  That  this  was  the  judgment  of  those  who  had  the  most  deeply 
considered  the  nature  of  these  decrees,  of  the  Assembly  of  English 
and  Scotch  divines,  of  the  reformed  churches,  both  in  France  and  the 
Low  Countries,  and  of  Mr.  Calvin  himself,  appears  from  their  own 
words,  beyond  all  possibility  of  contradiction.  "  Out  of  the  general 
corruption  (saith  the  French  church)  he  draws  those  whom  he  hath 
elected ;  leaving  the  others  in  the  same  corruption,  according  to  his 
immoveable  decree."  "  By  the  decree  of  God,  (says  the  Assembly 
of  English  and  Scotch  divines,)  some  are  predestinated  unto  ever- 
lasting life,  others  fore-ordained  to  everlasting  death."  "  God  hath, 
once  for  all,  (saith  Mr.  Calvin,)  appointed,  by  an  eternal  and  un- 
changeable decree,  to  whom  he  would  give  salvation,  and  whom  he 
would  devote  to  destruction."  {Inst.  cap.  3.  sect.  7.)  Nay,  it  is  obser- 
vable, Mr.  Calvin  speaks  with  utter  contempt  and  disdain  of  all  who 
endeavour  to  separate  one  from  the  other,  who  assert  election  with- 
out reprobation.  "  Many,  (says  he,)  as  it  were  to  excuse  God,  own 
election,  and  deny  reprobation.  But  this  is  quite  silly  and  childish. 
For  election  cannot  stand  without  reprobation.  Whom  God  passes 
by,  those  he  reprobates.  It  is  one  and  the  same  thing."  {hist.  1.  3, 
xap.  23,  sect.  1.) 

X.  Perhaps,  upon  deeper  consideration,  you  will  find  yourself  of 
the  same  judgment.  It  may  be,  you  also  hold  reprobation,  though 
you  know  it  not.  Do  not  you  believe,  that  God,  who  made  one  ves- 
sel nnto  honour,  hath  made  another  unto  eternal  dishonour  ?  Do  not 
you  believe  that  the  men  who  "  turn  the  grace  of  our  God  into  lasci- 
viousness,  were  before  ordained  of  God  unto  this  condemnation  V 


380  rREDESTITCATfOV   rALMr.V  rnwsmp.RF.P. 

Do  not  you  think,  that /or  this  same  purpose  God  raised  Pharaoli  up, 
that  he  might  show  his  sovereign  power  in  his  destruction  1  And  that 
Jacob  have  I  loved,  but  Esau  have  I  hated,  refers  to  their  eternal  state  l 
Why  then,  you  hold  absolute  reprobation ;  and  you  think  Esau  and 
Pharaoh  were  instances  of  it ;  as  well  as  all  those  vessels  made  unto 
dishonour,  those  men  before  ordained  unto  condemnation  1 

XL  To  set  this  matter  in  a  still  clearer  light,  you  need  only 
answer  one  question.  Is  any  man  saved  who  is  not  elected  %  Is  it 
possible  that  any  man  not  elected  should  be  saved  ?  If  you  say,  No, 
you  put  an  end  to  the  doubt :  You  espouse  election  and  reprobation 
together.  You  confirm  Mr.  Calvin's  words,  that  "without  reproba- 
tion, election  itself  cannot  stand."  You  allow,  though  you  were 
not  sensible  of  it  before,  that  "  whom  God  elects  not,  them  he  repro- 
bates." 

Try  whether  it  be  possible,  in  any  particular  case,  to  separate  elec- 
tion from  reprobation.  Take  one  of  those  who  are  supposed  not  to 
be  elected ;  one  whom  God  hath  not  chosen  unto  life  and  salvation. 
Can  this  man  be  saved  from  sin  and  hell  %  You  answer,  "  No." 
Why  not  ?  "  Because  he  is  not  elected.  Because  God  hath  un- 
changeably decreed  to  save  so  many  souls,  and  no  more  ;  and  he  is 
not  of  that  number.  Ilim  God  liath  decreed  to  pass  by  ;  to  leave 
him  to  everlasting  destruction  :  in  consequence  of  which  irresistible 
decree,  the  man  perishes  everlastingly."  O  my  brethren,  how 
small  is  the  difference  between  this  and  a  broad,  barefaced  repro- 
bation ! 

XII.  Let  me  entreat  you  to  make  this  case  your  own.  In  the 
midst  of  life,  you  are  in  death  ;  your  soul  is  dead  while  you  live,  if 
you  live  in  sin,  if  you  do  not  live  to  God.  And  who  can  deliver  you 
from  the  body  of  this  death  %  Only  the  grace  of  God  in  Jesus 
Christ  our  Lord.  But  God  hath  decreed  \.(y  give  this  grace,  to 
others  only,  and  not  to  you  :  to  leave  i/om  in  unbelief  and  spiritual 
death,  and  for  that  unbelief  to  punish  you  with  death  everlasting. 
Well  then  mayest  thou  cry,  even  till  thy  throat  is  dry,  "  O  wretched 
man  that  I  am  !"  For  an  unchangeable,  irresistible  decree  standeth 
between  thee  and  the  very  possibility  af  salvation.  Go  now,  and 
find  out  how  to  split  the  hair  between  thy  being  reprobated,  and  not 
elected  ;  how  to  separate  reprobation,  in  its  most  effectual  sense, 
fi'om  unconditional  election  ! 

XIII.  Acknowledge  then,  that  you  hold  reprobation.  Avow  it  \x\ 
the  face  of  the  sun.  To  be  consistent  with  yourself,  you  must 
openly  assert,  that  "without  reprobation  this  election  cannot  stand." 
You  know  it  cannot.  You  know  if  God  hath  fixed  a  decree  that 
these  men  only  shall  be  saved,  in  such  a  decree  it  is  manifestly  im- 
plied, that  all  other  men  shall  be  damned.  If  God  hath  decreed, 
that  this  part  of  mankind  and  no  more,  shall  live  eternally,  you  can- 
not but  see  it  is  therein  decreed,  "  that  the  other  part  shall  never  see 
life."  O  let  us  deal  ingenuously  with  each  other.  What  we  really 
hold,  let  us  openly  profess.  And  if  reprobation  be  the  truth,  it  will 
bear  the  light;  for  "  the  word  of  our  God  shall  stand  for  ever." 


J 


PREOKSTINATION  CALMLY  CONSIDERED.  381 

XIV.  Now,  then,  without  any  extenuation  on  the  one  hand,  or 
exaggeration  on  the  other,  let  us  look  upon  this  doctrine,  call  it  what 
you  please,  naked  and  in  its  native  colour.  Before  the  foundations 
of  the  world  were  laid,  God,  of  his  own  mere  will  and  pleasure, 
fixed  a  decree  concerning  all  the  children  of  men,  who  should  be 
born  unto  the  end  of  the  world.  This  decree  was  unchangeable 
with  regard  to  God,  and  irresistible  with  regard  to  man.  And 
herein  it  was  ordained  that  one  part  of  mankind  should  be  saved 
from  sin  and  hell,  and  all  the  rest  left  to  perish  for  ever  and  ever,  with- 
out help,  without  hope.  That  none  of  these  should  have  that  grace, 
which  alone  could  prevent  their  dwelling  with  everlasting  burnings, 
God  decreed,  for  this  cause  alone,  "  because  it  was  his  good  plea- 
sure !"  and  for  this  end,  "  to  show  forth  his  glorious  power,  and 
his  sovereignty  over  all  the  earth." 

XV.  Now  can  you,  upon  reflection,  believe  thisi  Perhaps  you 
will  say,  "  I  do  not  think  about  it."  That  will  never  do.  You  not 
only  think  about  it,  (though  it  may  be  confusedly,)  but  speak  about 
it  too,  whenever  you  speak  of  unconditional  election.  You  do  not 
think  about  it !  What  do  you  mean  7  Do  you  never  think  about 
Esau  or  Pharaoh?  Or  in  general  about  a  certain  number  of  souls, 
whom  alone  God  hath  decreed  to  save  *?  Why  in  that  very  thought 
reprobation  lurks;  it  entered  your  heart  the  moment  that  entered. 
It  stays  as  long  as  that  stays.  And  you  cannot  speak  that  thought, 
without  speaking  of  reprobation.  True,  it  is  covered  with  fig-leaves, 
so  that  a  heedless  eye  may  not  observe  it  to  be  there.  But  if  you 
narrowly  observe,  unconditional  election  cannot  appear  without  the 
cloven  foot  of  reprobation. 

XVI.  "But  do  not  the  Scriptures  speak  of  election?  They  say, 
St.  Paul  was  <  an  elected  or  chosen  vessel.'  Nay,  and  speak  of  great 
numbers  of  men,  as  '  elect,  according  to  the  fore-knowledge  of  God.'' 
You  cannot  therefore  deny  there  is  such  a  thing  as  election.  And  if 
there  is,  what  do  you  mean  by  it  ?" 

I  will  tell  you  in  all  plainness  and  simplicity.  I  believe  it  commonly 
means  one  of  these  two  things  ;  first,  a  divine  appointment  of  some 
particular  men,  to  do  some  particular  work  in  the  world.  And  this 
election  I  believe  to  be  not  only  personal,  but  absolute  and  uncon- 
ditional. Thus  Cyrus  was  elected  to  rebuild  the  temple,  and  St. 
Paul,  with  the  twelve,  to  preach  the  gospel.  But  I  do  not  find  this 
to  have  any  necessary  connexion  with  eternal  happiness.  Nay  it  is 
plain  it  has  not ;  for  one  who  is  elected  in  this  sense,  may  yet  be  lost 
eternally.  ^'  Have  1  not  chosen  (elected)  you  twelve,"  saith  our 
Lord,  "  yet  one  of  you  hath  a  Devil  ?"  Judas,  you  see,  was  elected 
as  well  as  the  rest:  yet  is  his  lot  with  the  Devil  and  his  angels. 

XVII.  I  believe  election  means,  secondly,  a  divine  appointment  oi 
some  men  to  eternal  happiness.  But  I  believe  this  election  to  be 
conditional,  as  well  as  the  reprobation  opposite  thereto.  I  believe 
the  eternal  decree  concerning  both  is  expressed  in  these  words, 
«*  He  that  believeth  shall  be  saved  :  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be 
damned."    And  this  decree  without  doubt  God  will  not  change,  and 


382  rREDESTINATION  CALMLY  CONSIDERED. 

man  cannot  resist.  According  to  this,  all  true  believers  are  in 
Scripture  termed  elect :  and  all  who  continue  in  unbeliefs  are  so  long 
properly  reprobates^  that  is,  unapproved  of  God,  and  tcithout  discern^ 
ment  touching  the  things  of  the  Spirit. 

XVIII.  Now  God,  to  whom  all  things  are  present  at  once,  who 
sees  all  eternity  at  one  view,  "  calleth  the  things  that  are  not,  as 
though  they  were,"  the  things  that  are  not  yet,  as  though  they  were 
now  subsisting.  Thus  he  calls  Abraham  "  the  father  of  many  na- 
tions" before  even  Isaac  was  born.  And  thus  Christ  is  called,  "  the 
Lamb  slain  from  the  foundation  of  the  world,"  though  he  was  not 
slain,  in  fact,  till  some  thousands  of  years  after.  In  like  manner, 
God  calleth  true  believers,  "elect  from  the  foundation  of  the  world  :" 
although  they  were  not  actually  elect  or  believers  till  many  ages 
after,  in  their  several  generations.  Then  only  it  was  that  they  were 
actually  elected,  when  they  were  made  the  "  sons  of  God  by  faith." 
Then  were  they  in  fact  chosen  and  taken  out  of  the  world;  "elect" 
(saith  St.  Paul)  "  through  belief  of  the  truth  :"  or  (as  St.  Peter  ex- 
presses it)  "  elect  according  to  the  foreknowledge  of  God,  through 
sanctification  of  the  Spirit." 

XIX.  This  election  I  as  firmly  believe,  as  I  believe  the  Scripture 
to  be  of  God.  But  unconditional  election  I  cannot  believe  ;  not  only 
because  I  cannot  find  in  Scripture,  but  also,  (to  waive  all  other  con- 
siderations,) because  it  necessarily  implies  unconditional  reproba- 
tion. Find  out  any  election  which  does  not  imply  reprobation,  and 
I  will  gladly  agree  to  it.  But  reprobation  I  can  never  agree  to, 
while  I  believe  the  Scripture  to  be  of  God :  as  being  utterly  irre- 
concileable  to  the  whole  scope  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament. 

O  that  God  would  give  me  the  desire  of  my  heart  !  That  he 
would  grant  me  the  thing  which  I  long  for  !  Even  that  your  mind 
inight  now  be  free  and  calm,  and  open  to  the  light  of  his  Spirit ! 
That  you  would  impartially  consider,  how  it  is  possible  to  reconcile 
reprobation  with  the  following  scriptures : 

Gen.  ii.  7,  "  Because  thou  hast  eaten  of  the  tree  of  which  1  com- 
manded thee,  saying,  Thou  shalt  not  eat  of  it ;  in  the  sweat  of  thy 
face  shalt  thou  eat  bread."  The  curse  shall  come  on  thee  and  thine 
offspring,  not  because  of  any  absolute  decree  of  mine,  but  because 
of  thy  sin. 

Chap.  iv.  7,  "If  thou  doest  well,  shalt  thou  not  be  accepted? 
And  if  thou  doest  not  well,  sin  lieth  at  the  door."  Sin  only,  not  the 
decree  of  reprobation,  hinders  thy  being  accepted. 

Deut.  vii.  9,  "  Know  that  the  Lord  thy  God,  he  is  the  faithful 
God,  which  keepeth  covenant  and  mercy  with  them  that  love  him 
and  keep  his  commandments,  to  a  thousand  generations  :  and  re- 
payeth  them  that  hate  him  to  their  face  to  destroy  them."  Ver.  12, 
"  Wherefore  if  ye  hearken  to  these  judgments,  and  keep  and  do 
them,  the  Lord  thy  God  shall  keep  unto  thee  the  covenant  which  he 
sware  unto  thy  fathers." 

Chap.  xi.  26 — 28,  "Behold,  I  set  before  you  this  day  a  blessing 


I'KEDESTINATION    CALMLY   CONSIDERED.  383 

and  a  curse  ;  a  blessing,  if  you  obey  the  commandments  of  the  Lord 
your  God  ;  and  a  curse,  if  you  will  not  obey." 

Chap.  XXX.  15,  &c.  "  See,  I  have  set  before  thee  this  day  life  and 
good,  and  death  and  evil :  in  that  I  command  thee  this  day  to  love 
the  Lord  thy  God,  to  walk  in  his  ways  and  keep  his  commandments, 
and  the  Lord  thy  God  shall  bless  thee.  But  if  thou  wilt  not  hear,  I 
denounce  unto  you  this  day,  that  ye  shall  surely  perish.  I  call  hea- 
ven and  earth  to  record  this  day,  that  I  have  set  before  yoii  life  and 
death,  blessing  and  cursing.  Therefore  choose  life,  that  both  thou 
and  thy  seed  may  live." 

2  Chron.  xv.  1,  &c.  "  And  the  Spirit  of  God  came  upon  Azariah, 
and  he  said, — The  Lord  is  with  you  while  ye  be  with  him  :  and  it 
ye  seek  him,  he  will  be  found  of  you :  but  if  ye  forsake  him,  he 
will  forsake  you." 

Ezra  ix.  1 4,  "  After  all  that  is  come  upon  us  for  our  evil  deeds, 
and  for  our  great  trespass, — Should  we  again  break  thy  command- 
ments, wouldst  thou  not  be  angry  with  us,  till  thou  hadst  consumed 
usi" 

Job  xxxvi.  5,  "  Behold,  God  is  mighty,  and  despiseth  not  any." 
Could  he  then  reprobate  any  ? 

Psal.  cxlv.  9,  "  The  Lord  is  good  to  all,  and  his  tender  mercies 
are  over  all  his  works." 

Prov.  i.  23,  &c.  "  Turn  you  at  my  reproof;  behold  I  will  pour 
out  my  Spirit  upon  you."  "  Because  I  have  called  and  ye  refused, 
I  have  stretched  out  my  hand,  and  no  man  regarded.  I  also  will 
laugh  at  your  calamity,  I  will  mock  when  your  fear  cometh.  Then 
shall  they  call  upon  me,  but  1  will  not  answer ;  they  shall  seek  me 
early,  but  they  shall  not  find  me."  Why  ?  Because  of  ray  decree  1 
No.  "  But  because  they  hated  knowledge,  and  did  not  choose  the 
fear  of  the  Lord." 

Isaiah  Ixv.  2,  &c.  "  I  have  spread  out  my  hands  all  the  day  unto 
a  rebellious  people  ;  a  people  that  provoked  me  to  anger  continually 
to  my  face ;  therefore  v/ill  I  measure  their  former  work  into  their 
bosom. — Ye  shall  all  bow  down  to  the  slaughter,  because  when  I 
called  ye  did  not  answer, — Therefore  ye  shall  leave  your  name  for 
a  curse  unto  my  chosen  ;  for  the  Lord  God  shall  slay  thee,  and  call 
his  servants  by  another  name." 

Ezek.  xviii.  20,  &c.  "The  soul  that  sinneth,  it  shall  die.  The 
son  shall  not  bear  {eternally)  the  iniquity  of  the  father,  neither  shall 
the  father  bear  the  iniquity  of  the  son. — Have  I  any  pleasure  at  al! 
that  the  wicked  should  die,  saith  the  Lord  :  and  not  that  he  shoulc] 
return  from  his  ways  and  live  ?" 

Matt,  vii.  26,  "  Every  one  that  heareth  these  sayings  of  mine,  and 
doeth  them  not,  shall  be  likened  unto  a  foolish  man,  which  built  his 
house  upon  the  sand."  Nay,  he  could  not  help  it,  if  he  were  or- 
^lained  thereto. 

Chap.  xi.  20,  &c.  "  Then  began  he  to  upbraid  the  cities  whereia 
most  of  his  mighty  works  were  done,  because  they  repented  not. 
Wo  unto  thee,  Chorazin,  wo  unto  thee,  Bethsaida :  for  if  the  mighty 


384  PHEDESTIXATION    calmly    CONSIDERRn, 

works  which  were  done  in  you,  had  been  done  in  Tyre  and  Sidoo- 
they  would  have  repented  long  ago  in  sackcloth  and  ashes."  (What 
if  they  were  not  elected?  And  if  they  of  Bethsaida  had  been  ciedetf, 
would  they  not  have  repented  too  1)  "Therefore  I  say  unto  you,  it 
shall  be  more  tolerable  for  Tyre  and  Sidon  in  the  day  of  judgment, 
than  for  you.  And  thou,  Capernaum,  which  art  exalted  unto  hea- 
ven, shalt  be  brought  down  to  hell.  For  if  the  mighty  works  which 
have  been  done  in  thee,  had  been  done  in  Sodom,  it  would  have  re- 
mained until  this  day.  But  I  say  unto  you,  it  shall  be  more  tolera- 
ble for  the  land  of  Sodom  in  the  day  of  judgment  than  for  thee." 

Chap.  xii.  41,  "The  men  of  Nineveh  shall  rise  in  judgment  with 
this  generation,  and  shall  condemn  it ;  because  they  repented  at  the 
preaching  of  Jonas,  and  behold  a  greater  than  Jonas  is  here."  But 
what  was  this  to  the  purpose,  if  the  men  of  J^Tineveh  were  elected,  and 
this  generation  of  men  were  not  ? 

Chap.  xiii.  11,  12,  "  It  is  given  unto  you  to  know  the  mysteries  of 
the  kingdom  of  heaven,  but  unto  them  it  is  not  given.  For  whoso- 
ever hath  (i.  e.  uses  what  he  hath)  to  him  shall  be  given,  and  he  shall 
have  more  abundance.  But  Avhosoever  hath  not,  from  him  shall  be 
taken  away  even  that  he  hath."  Chap.  xxii.  5.  8,  "They  which 
were  called  were  not  worthy,"  were  shut  out  from  the  marriage  of 
the  Lamb  :  Why  so  ]  Because  "  they  would  not  come,"  verse  3. 
The  whole  twenty-filth  chapter  requires,  and  will  reward  your  most 
serious  consideration.  If  you  can  reconcile  unconditional  reproba- 
tion with  this,  you  may  reconcile  it  with  the  18th  of  Ezekiel. 

John  iii.  18,  "This  is  the  condemnation,  that  light  is  come  into 
the  world,  and  men  love  (or  choose)  darkness  rather  than  light." 
Chap.  V.  44,  "  How  can  ye  believe,  who  receive  honour  one  of 
another,  and  seek  not  the  honour  that  cometh  of  God  only?"  Ob- 
serve the  reason  why  they  could  not  believe  :  it  was  not  in  God,  but 
in  themselves 

Acts  viii.  20,  &,c.  "  Thy  money  perish  with  thee,  (and  so  doubt- 
less it  did.)  Thou  hast  neither  part  nor  lot  in  this  matter  ;  for  thy 
heart  is  not  right  in  the  sight  of  God.  Repent  therefore  of  this  thy 
wickedness,  and  pray  God,  if  perhaps  the  thought  of  thy  heart  may 
be  forgiven  thee."  So  that  St.  Peter  had  no  thought  of  any  abso- 
lute reprobation,  even  in  the  case  of  Simon  Magus. 

Rom.  i.  20,  &c.  "  They  are  without  excuse  ;  because  when  they 
knew  God,  they  glorified  him  not  as  God: — wherefore  God  also 
gave  them  up  to  uncleanness, — who  changed  the  truth  of  God  into 
a  lie, — For  this  cause  God  gave  them  up  to  vile  affections, — As  they 
did  not  like  to  retain  God  in  their  knowledge,  God  gave  them  over 
to  a  reprobate  mind,  to  do  those  things  which  are  not  convenient." 

2  Thess.  ii.  10,  &c.  "  Them  that  perish,  because  they  received 
not  the  love  of  the  truth,  that  they  might  be  saved.  And  for  this 
cause  God  shall  send  them  strong  delusions,  to  believe  a  lie  :  that 
they  all  might  be  damned  who  believed  not  the  truth,  but  had  plea- 
sure in  unrighteousness." 


TREDESTINATION  CALMLY  CONSIDERED.  385 

XX.  How  will  you  reconcile  reprobation  with  the  following- 
Scriptures,  which  declare  God's  willingness  that  all  should  be  saved  ? 

Matt.  xxii.  9,  "  As  many  as  ye  shall  find,  bid  (invite)  to  the  mar- 
riage." 

Mark  xvi.  15,  "Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the  gospel 
to  every  ftatigffi."  {^^<^  i*^  dcc-C'i*^ 

Luke  xix.  41,  &,c.  "  And  when  he  came  near,  he  beheld  the  city, 
3nd  wept  over  it,  saying.  If  (rather,  O  ihaV)  thou  hadst  kiiown,  at 
least  in  this  thy  day,  the  things  which  belong  unto  thy  peace  !" 

John  V.  34,  "  These  things  I  say,  that  ye  may  be  saved,"  viz. 
those  who  persecuted  him,  and  sought  to  slay  him,  ver.  16;  and  oi 
whom  he  complains,  ver.  40,  "  Ye  will  not  come  unto  me,  that  ye 
may  have  life." 

Acts  xvii.  24,  &c.  "God,  that  made  the  world  and  all  things 
therein, — giveth  to  all  life,  and  breath,  and  ^.11  things,  and  hath  made 
of  one  blood  all  nations  of  men,  for  to  dwell  on  all  the  face  of  the 
earth, — That  they  should  seek  ihe  Lord."  Observe,  this  was  God's 
end  in  creating  all  nations  on  all  the  earth. 

Rom.  V.  18,  "  As  by  the  oft'ence  of  one,  judgment  came  upon  all 
men  to  condemnation,  so  by  the  righteousness  of  one,  tiie  htc  gift 
came  upon  all  men  unto  justification  of  life."  Chap.  x.  12,  "  The 
same  Lord  over  all,  is  rich  (in  mercy)  unto  all  that  call  upon  him." 

1  Tim.  ii.  3,  4,  "  This  is  good  and  acceptable  in  the  sight  of  God 
our  Saviour,  who  willeth  all  men  to  be  saved:" — Chap.  iv.  10,  "Who 
is  the  Saviour  of  all  men,  especially  of  those  that  believe,"  i.  e.  in- 
tentionally of  all ;  and  actually  of  believers.  James  i.  5,  "  If  any 
tnau  lack  wisdom,  let  him  ask  of  God,  who  giveth  to  all  men  libe- 
rally, and  upbraideth  not."  2  Pet.  iii.  9,  "  The  Lord  is  long-suffer- 
ing toward  us,  not  willing  that  any  should  perish,  but  that  all  should 
come  to  repentance."  1  John  iv.  14,  "  We  have  seen  and  do  tes- 
tify, that  the  Father  sent  the  Son  to  be  the  Saviour  of  the  world." 

XXI.  How  will  you  reconcile  reprobation  with  the  following 
scriptures,  which  declare  that  Christ  came  to  save  all  men,  that  he 
died  for  all,  that  he  atoned  for  all,  even  for  those  that  finally  perish '[ 

Matt,  xviii.  11,  "The  Son  of  man  is  come  to  save  thai  which  is 
lost,"  without  any  restriction.  John  i.  29,  "  Behold  the  Lamb  of 
God,  which  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world."  Chap.  iii.  17, 
"  God  sent  his  Son  into  the  world,  that  the  world  through  him  might 
be  saved."  Chap.  xii.  47,  "  I  came  not  (now)  to  judge  the  world, 
but  to  save  the  world."  Rom.  xiv.  15,  "Destroy  not  him  with  thv 
meat  for  whom  Christ  died."  1  Cor.  viii.  11,  "  Through  thy  know 
ledge  shall  thy  weak  brother  perish,  for  whom  Christ  died." 

2  Cor.  v.  14,  &c.  "  We  thus  judge,  that  if  one  died  for  all,  then 
were  all  dead  :  and  that  he  died  for  all,  that  those  (or  all)  who  live 
should  live  unto  him  which  died  for  them."  Here  you  see,  not  only 
that  Christ  died  for  all  men,  but  likewise  the  end  of  his  dying  foi 
them. 

1  Tim.  ii.  6,  "  Christ  Jesus,  who  gave  himself  a  ransom  for  all.'' 
Vol.  9.— K  k 


586  PREDESTINATION  CALMLY  CONSIDEilED. 

Heb.  ii.  9,  "  We  see  Jesus  made  lower  than  the  angels,  that  he  might 
taste  death  for  every  i^,   ." 

2  Pet.  ii.  1,  "  There  shall  be  false  teachers  among  you,  who  shall 
privately  bring  in  damnable  heresies,  evtn  denying  the  Lord  that 
bought  them,  and  bring  upon  themselves  swift  destruction."  You 
see,  he  bought,  or  redeemed,  even  those  that  perish,  that  bring  upon 
themselves  swift  destruction, 

1  John  ii.  1,3,"  It  any  man  sin,  we  have  an  Advocate  with  the. 
Father,  Jesus  Christ  the  righteous  ;  and  he  is  the  propitiation  fov 
our  sins,"  (avIio  are -elect,  according  to  the  knowledge  of  God,)  "and 
not  for  ours  only,  but  also  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world." 

You  are  sensible  these  are  but  a  very  small  part  of  the  scriptures 
which  might  be  brought  on  each  of  these  heads.  But  they  are 
enough  :  and  they  require  no  comment :  taken  in  their  plain,  easy, 
obvious  sense,  they  abundantly  prove,  that  there  is  not,  cannot  be 
any  such  thing  as  unconditional  reprobation. 

XXII.  But  to  be  a  little  more  particular.  How  can  you  possibly 
reconcile  reprobation  with  those  scriptures  that  declare  the  justice  ot 
God  1     To  cite  one  for  all : 

Ezek.  xviii,  2,  &c.  "  What  mean  ye,  that  ye  use  this  proverb, — ■ 
The  fathers  have  eaten  sour  grapes,  and  the  children's  teeth  are  set 
on  edge  ]  As  I  live,  saith  the  Lord  God,  ye  shall  not  have  occasion 
any  more  to  use  this  proverb  in  Israel.  Behold,  all  souls  are  mine  ; 
as  the  soul  of  the  father,  so  also  the  soul  of  the  son  is  mine  ;"  (and 
however  I  may  temporally  visit  the  sins  of  the  fathers  upon  the  chil- 
dren, yet  this  visitation  extends  no  farther)  "but  the  soul  that  sin- 
neth,  it  shall  die,"  for  its  own  sin,  and  not  another's.  "  But  if  a 
man  be  just,  and  do  that  which  is  lawful  and  right, — he  shall  surely 
live,  saith  the  Lord  God.  If  he  beget  a  son  which  is  a  robber, — 
shall  he  then  live  1  He  shall  not  live  ;  he  shall  surely  die. — Yet  say 
ye.  Why  1  doth  not  the  son  bear  the  iniquity  of  the  father  ]  Tem- 
porally he  doth,  as  in  the  case  of  Achan,  Korah,  and  a  thousand 
others.  (But  not  eternally.)  "When  the  sou  hath  done  that  Avhich 
is  lawful  and  right,  he  shall  surely  live.  The  soul  that  sinneth  it 
shall  die;"  (shall  die  the  second  death.)  "  The  son  shall  not  bear 
the  iniquity  of  the  father,  neither  shall  the  father  bear  the  iniquity 
of  the  son.  The  righteousness  of  the  righteous  shall  be  upon  him, 
nnd  the  wickedness  of  the  wicked  shall  be  upon  him.  Yet  ye  say, 
the  way  of  the  Lord  is  not  equal.  Hear  me  now,  O  house  of  Israel, 
is  not  my  way  equal,  (equitable,  just  1)  Are  not  your  ways  un- 
equal 1  When  a  righteous  man  turneth  away  from  his  righteous- 
ness, and  committeth  iniquity,  and  dieth  in  them  ;  for  his  iniquity 
that  he  hath  done,  shall  he  die.  Again ;  when  the  wicked  man 
turneth  away  iVom  his  wickedness  that  he  hath  committed,  and  doeth 
that  which  is  lawful  and  right,  he  shall  save  his  soul  alive.  There- 
fore I  will  judge  you,  O  house  of  Israel,  every  one  according  to  his 
Avays,  saith  the  Lord  God.  Repent  and  turn  yourselves  from  all 
your  transgressions;  so  iniquity  shall  not  be  your  ruin." 

Through  this  whole  passage  God  is  pleased  to  appeal  to  man  him- 


PRKDBSTINATION  CALMLV  CONSIDERED.  3B'i 

«C;lf,  touching  the  justice  of  his  proceedings.  And  well  might  he 
appeal  to  our  own  consciences,  according  to  the  account  of  them 
which  is  here  given.  But  it  is  an  account  which  all  the  art  of  man 
will  never  reconcile  with  unconditional  reprobation. 

XXIII.  Do  you  think  it  will  cut  the  knot  to  say,  *'  Why,  if  God 
might  justly  have  passed  by  all  men,"  (speak  out,  "  if  God  might 
justly  have  reprobated  all  men,''  for  it  comes  to  the  same' point,} 
"then  he  may  justly  pass  by  some.  But  God  might  justly  have 
passed  by  all  men."  Are  you  sure  he  might  1  Where  is  it  wrhien? 
I  cannot  find  it  in  the  word  of  God.  Therefore  Ireject  it  as  a  bold; 
precarious  assertion,  utterly  unsupported  by  holy  Scripture.  >• 

If  you  say,  "  But  you  know  in  your  own  conscience,  God  might 
justly  have  passed  by  you ;  I  deny  it.  That  God  might  justly,  for 
my  unfaithfulness  to  hjs  grace,  have  given  me  up  long  ago,  I  grant ; 
but  this  concession  supposes  me  to  have  had  that  grace  which  you 
say  a  reprobate  never  had. 

But  besides,  in  making  this  supposition  of  what  God  might  have 
justly  done,  you  suppose  his  justice  might  have  been  separate  from 
his  other  attributes,  from  his  mercy  in  particular.  But  this  never 
was,  nor  ever  will  be  ;  nor  indeed  is  it  possible  it  should.  All  his 
attributes  are  inseparably  joined  ;  they  cannot  be  divided,  no,  not 
for  a  moment.  Therefore  this  whole  argument  stands,  not  only  on 
an  unscriptural,  but  on  an  absurd,  impossible  supposition. 

XXIV.  Do  you  say,  "  Nay,  but  it  is  just  for  God  to  pass  by  whon 
he  will,  because  of  his  sovereignty  ;"  for  he  said  himself,  "  May  not 
I  do  what  I  will  with  my  own  1"  And  "  Hath  not  the  potter  power 
over  his  own  clay  ?"  I  answer,  the  former  of  these  s^itences 
stands  in  the  conclusion  of  that  parable,  (Matt,  xx.)  wherein  oui 
Lord  reproves  the  Jews  for  murmuring  at  God's  giving  the  same  re- 
ward to  the  Gentiles  as  to  them.  To  one  of  these  murmurers  it  is 
that  God  says,  "  Friend,  I  do  thee  no  wrong.-  Take  that  is  thine, 
and  go  thy  way.  I  will  give  unto  this  last  even  as  unto  thee." 
Then  follows,  "  Is  it  not  lawful  for  me  to  do  what  I  will  with  mine 
o  vn  1  Is  thine  eye  evil  because  I  am  good  1"  As  if  he  had  said. 
May  I  not  give  my  own  kingdom  to  whom  I  please  1  Art  thou  angr} 
because  I  am  merciful  1  It  is  then  undeniably  clear,  that  God  does 
not  here  assert  a  right  of  reprobating  any  man.  Here  is  nothing 
spoken  of  reprobation,  bad  or  good.  Here  is  no  kind  of  reference 
thereto.  This  text  therefore  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  conclusion 
it  was  brought  to  prove. 

XXV.  But  you  add,  "  Hath  not  the  potter  power  over  his  own 
clay  ?"  Let  us  consider  the  context  of  these  words  also.  They 
are  found  in  the  ninth  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans ;  an 
epistle,  the  general  scope  and  intent  of  which  is,  to  pubUsh  the  eter- 
nal, unchangeable,  Tr^aScni,  purpose  or  decree  of  God,  "  He  that 
beheveth  shall  be  saved ;  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damn- 
ed." The  justice  of  God  in  condemning  those  that  believed  not, 
and  the  necessity  of  believing  in  order  to  salvation,  the  Apostle 
proves  at  large  in  the  three  first  chapters,  which  he  contirms  in  the 


388  PPvEDESTIKATION  CALMLY  COffSIDERED, 

fourth  by  the  example  of  Abraham.  In  the  former  part  of  th^ 
tiftli,  and  in  the  sixth  chapter,  he  describes  the  happiness  and  hoU- 
iiess  of  true  beUevers.  (The  latter  ]^art  of  the  iifcii  is  a  digression., 
concerning  the  extent  of  the  benefits  flowing  from  the  death  o\ 
Christ.)  In  the  seventh,  he  shows  in  what  sense  ijelieversin  Christ 
are  delivered  from  the  law  ;  and  describes  the  miserable  bondage  of 
those  who  are  still  under  the  law  ;  that  is,  who  are  truly  convinced 
of  sin,  but  not  able  to  conquer  it.  In  the  eighth,' he  again  describes 
the  happy  liberty  of  those  who  truly  believe  in  Christ ;  and  en- 
courages them  to  sutfer  for  the  faith,  as  by  other  considerations,  so 
by  this  in  particular,  "  we  know  that  all  things  Avork  together  for 
good  to  them  that  love  God,"  (ver.  28,)  "to  them  that  are  called"  (h} 
the  preaching  of  his  word)  "  according  to  his  purpose,"  (or  decree 
which  he  unaUerably  tixed  from  eternity,)  he  that  belie veth  shall  be 
saved.  "  For  whom  he  did  foreknow,"  (as  believing,)  "  he  also  did 
predestinate  to  l)e  conformed  to  the  image  of  his  Son.  Moreover, 
whom  he  did  predestinate,  them  he  also  called,"  (by  his  word,  so  that 
term  is  usually  taken  in  St.  Paul's  epistles  :)  "  and  whom  he  called^ 
them  he  also  justified,"  (the  word  is  here  taken  in  its  widest  sense, 
as  including  sanctification  also,)  "  and  whom  he  justified,  them  he 
glorified."  Thence,  to  the  end  of  the  chapter,  he- strongly  en- 
courages all  those  who  had  the  love  of  God  shed  abroad  in  theii 
hearts,  to  have  a  good  hope,  that  no  sufl'erings  should  ever  "  be  able 
to  separate  them  from  the  love  of  God  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus." 

XXVI.  But  as  the  aposde  was  aware,  how  deeply  the  Jews  were 
otiended  at  the  whole  tenor  of  his  doctrine,  and  more  especially  cl 
his  asserting,  1.  That  the  Jews  themselves  cmld  not  be  saved  with- 
out believing  in  Jesus  ;  and,  2.  That  the  Heathens,  by  believing  ia 
him,  might  partake  of  the  same  salvation  ;  he  spends  the  whole  ninth 
chapter  upon  them  :  wherein,  1.  He  declares  the  tender  love  he  had 
for  them,  ver.  1.  3.  2.  Allows  the  great  national  privileges  they 
enjoyed  above  any  people  under  heaven,  ver.  4, 5.  3.  Answers  their 
grand  objection  to  his  doctrine,  taken  from  the  justice  of  God,  to 
their  fathers,  ver.  6 — 13.  4.  Removes  another  objection,  taken 
from  the  justice  of  God,  interveaviiig  all  along  strong  reproofs  to  the 
Jews,  for  priding  themselves  on  those  privileges,  which  were  o»ving 
merely  to  the  good  pleasure  of  God,  not  to  their  fathers'  goodness, 
any  more  than  their  own,  ver.  14.  23.  5.  Resumes  and  pro.es  bv 
Scripture  his  former  assertion,  that  many  Jews  would  be  lost,  and 
many  Heathens  sav^^d,  ver.  24 — 29.  And,  lastly,  sums  up  the  gene- 
ral drift  of  this  chapter,  and  indeed  of  the  whole  epistle  JVhat 
shall  we.  say  then?  What  is  the  conclusion  f  om  the  whole  1  The  sum 
of  all  which  has  been  spoken?  Why,  thai  mai.y  Gentiles  already 
partake  of  the  great  salvation,  and  many  Jews  fall  short  of  it 
Wherefore  ?  Because  they  would  not  receive  it  by  faith.  And  who- 
soever believe  h  not,  cannot  be  saved;  \\herevLS,  ^':hot<oever  believeih 
in  Christ,  whether  Jew   or  Gentile,  shall  not  be  ashamed,  ver.  30.  33. 

XXVII.  Those  words,  "  Hath  not  ihe  potter  power  over  his  own 
€lay  ?'  are  part  of  St.  Paul's  answer  to  that  objection,  that  it  wa§ 


PREDESTINATION  CALMLY  CONSIDERED.  389" 

^nijust  for  God  to  show  that  mercy  to  the  Gentiles,  which  he  with- 
held  from  his  own  people.  This  he  first  simply  denies,  saying,  God 
forbid  !  And  then  observes,  that  according  to  his  own  words  to 
Moses,  God  has  a  right  to  fix  the  terms  on  which  he  will  show  mercy, 
which  neither  the  will  nor  the  power  of  man  can  alter,  ver.  15,  16  ; 
and  to  withdraw  his  mercy  from  them,  who,  like  Pharaoh,  will  not 
comply  with  those  terms,  ver.  17.  And  that  accordingly,  "  he  hath 
mercy  on  whom  he  will  have  mercy,"  namely,  those  that  truly  be- 
lieve ;  and  icJiom  he  will,  namely,  obstinate  unbelievers,  he  suffers  to 
be  hardened, 

XXVJlI.  But  why  then,  say  the  objectors,  doth  he  find  fault  with 
those  that  are  hardened?  "For  who  hath  resisted  his  will  1"  ver  19. 
To  this  insolent  misconstruction  of  what  he  had  said,  the  apostk 
first  gives  a  severe  rebuke,  and  then  adds,  "  Shall  the  thing  formed 
say  unto  him  that  formed  it.  Why  hast  thou  made  me  thus  ?"  Whj 
hast  thou  made  me  capable  of  salvation,  only  on  those  terms  ?  None 
indeed  hath  7^esisted  this  ivill  of  God,  "  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be 
damned."  But  is  this  any  ground  for  arraigning  his  justice"?  Hath 
not  the  great  Potter  power  over  his  own  clay  ?  to  make,  or  appoint  one 
sovio^  vessels,  namely  believers,  to  honour,  and  the  others,  unto  disho- 
nour ?  Hath  he  not  a  right  to  distribute  eternal  honour  and  dishonour, 
on  whatever  terms  he  pleases  1  Especially  considering  the  goodness 
and  patience  he  shows,  even  towards  them  that  believe  not ; 
considering  that  when  they  have  provoked  him  to  show  his  icrath, 
and  make  the  power  of  his  vengeance  known,  yet  he  endures,  with 
much  long-suffering,  even  those  vessels  of  torath,  who  had  \ie(ore  fitted 
themselves  for  destruction.  There  is  then  no  more  room  to  reply 
against  God,  for  making  his  vengeance  known  on  those  vessels  of 
wrath,  than  for  making  known  his  glorious  love  "  on  the  vessels  ol 
mercy  whom  he  had  before  prepared  for  glory  ;  even  us,  whom  he 
hath  called,  not  of  the  Jews  only,  but  also  of  the  Gentiles." 

XXIX.  1  have  spoken  more  largely  than  I  designed,  in  order  to 
show,  that  neither  our  Lord,  in  the  above-mentioned  parable,  nor  St. 
Paul,  in  these  words,  had  any  view  to  God's  sovereign  power,  as  the 
ground  of  unconditional  reprobation.  And  beware  that  you  go  no 
further  therein,  than  you  are  authorized  by  them.  Take  care,  when- 
ever you  speak  of  these  high  things,  to  "  speak  as  the  Oracles  ol 
God."  And  if  so,  you  will  never  speak  of  the  sovereignty  cf  God, 
but  in  conjunction  with  his  other  attributes.  For  the  Scripture  no 
where  speaks  of  this  single  attnbute,  as  separate  from  the  rest. 
Much  less  does  it  any  where  speak  of  the  sovereignty  of  God,  as 
singly  disposing  the  eternal  states  of  men.  No,  no  :  in  this  awful 
work^  God  proceeds  according  to  the  known  rules  of  his  justice 
and  mercy.  But  never  assign  his  sovereignty  ss  the  cause  why  any 
man  is  punished  with  everlasting  destruction. 

XXX.  Now  then,  are  you  not  quite  out  of  your  way  1  You  are 
not  in  the  way  which  God  hath  revealed.  You  are  putting  eternal 
iiappiness  and  misery  on  an  unscriptural,  and  very  dreadful  footing 
Make  the  case  your  own.     Here  are  you,  a  sinner,  convinced  that 

Kk2       * 


390  PREDESTINATION   CALMLY   CONSIDERED, 

you  deserve  the  damnation  of  hell.  Sorrow,  therefore,  and  fisai 
have  filled  your  heart.  And  how  shall  you  be  comforted'?  By  thr 
promises  of  God.  But  perhaps  you  have  no  part  therein  ;  for  they 
belong  only  t:  >  the  elect.  By  the  consideration  of  his  love  and  ten- 
der mercy  1  but  what  are  these  to  you,  if  you  are  a  leprobate  1  God 
does  not  love  you  at  all.  You,  like  Esau,  he  hath  hated,  even  from 
eternity.  What  ground  then  can  you  have  for  the  least  shadow  of 
iiope  1  Why,  it  is  possible,  that  is  all,  that  God's  sovereign  will  njay 
"fee  on  your  side;  possibly  God  may  save  you,  because  he  will!  O 
poor  encouragement  to  despaiiing  sinners!  I  fe^r  faith  rarely  cometh 
by  hearing  this  ! 

XXXI.  The  sovereignty  of  God  is  then  never  to  be  brought  {<■ 
supersede  his  justice.  And  this  is  the  present  objection  against  un- 
conditional reprobation,  (the  plain  consequence  of  unconditional 
election  ;)  it  flatly  contradicts,  indeed  utterly  overthrows,  the  Scrip- 
ture account  of  the  justice  of  God.  This  has  been  proved  in  gene- 
ral already  :  let  us  now  weigh  a  few  particulars.  And,  1.  The  Scrip- 
ture describes  God  as  the  Judge  of  the  earth.  But  how  shall  God 
in  justice,  judge  the  world,  (O  consider  this,  as  in  the  presence  ol 
God,  with  reverence  and  godly  fear!)  How  shall  God,  in  justice, 
judge  the  world,  if  there  be  any  decree  of  reprobation  1  On  this 
supposition,  what  should  those  on  the  left  hand  be  condemned 
for?  For  their  having  done  evil  ]  They  could  not  help  it.  There 
never  was  a  time  when  they  could  have  helped  it.  God,  you 
say,  of  old,  ordained  them  to  this  condemnation.  And  "  who  hatlt 
resisted  his  will  ]"  He  sold  them,  you  say,  "  to  work  wickedness,'" 
even  from  their  mother's  womb.  He  "gave  them  up  to  a  reprobate 
mind,"  or  ever  they  hung  upon  their  mother's  breast.  Shall  he  then 
condemn  them  for  what  they  could  not  help  1  Shall  the  Just,  the 
Holy  One  of  Israel,  adjudge  millions  of  men  to  everlasting  pain, 
because  their  blood  moved  in  their  veins  1  Nay,  this  they  might  have 
helped  by  putting  an  end  to  their  lives  But  could  they  even  thus 
have  escaped  from  sin  1  Not  without  that  grace  which  you  suppose 
God  had  absolutely  determined  never  to  give  them.  And  yet  you 
suppose  him  to  send  them  into  eternal  fire,  for  not  escaping  from  sin  ! 
that  is,  in  plain  terms,  for  not  having  that  grace  which  God  had  de- 
creed they  should  never  have !  O  strange  justice  !  What  a  picture 
do  you  draw  of  the  Judge  of  all  the  earth  ? 

XXXH.  Are  they  not  rather  condemned,  for  not  doing  good,  ac- 
cording to  those  solemn  words  of  the  great  Judge,  "  Depart,  ye 
cursed, — For  I  was  an  hungered,  and  ye  gave  me  no  meat ;  1  was 
thirsty,  and  ye  gave  me  no  drink  ;  a  stranger,  and  ye  took  me  not  in  ; 
I  was  naked,  and  ye  clothed  me  not;  sick  and  in  prison,  and  ye  visited 
rae  not.  Then  shall  they  answer," — But  how  much  better  an  an- 
avV^er  do  you  put  into  their  mouths  !  Upon  your  supposition,  might 
they  not  say,  (O  consider  it  well,  in  meekness  and  fear!)  Lord, 
we  might  have  done  the  outward  work  :  but  thou  knowest,  it  would 
have  but  increased  our  damnation.  We  might  have  fed  the  hungry, 
^iven  drink  to  the  thirsty,  and  coYcred  the  naked  with  a  garment, 


PREDESTINATIOiT   CALMLY   C0NSIDERE1>;  ^       351 

But  all  these  works,  without  any  special  grace,  which  we  never  had, 
nor  possibly  could  have,  (seeing  thou  hadst  eternally  decreed  to  with- 
hold it  from  us,)  would  only  have  been  splendid  sins.  They  would 
only  have  heated  the  furnace  of  hell,  seven  times  hotter  than  before. 
Upon  your  supposition,  might  they  not  say,  "  Righteous  art  thou, 
O  Lord,  yet  let  us  plead  with  theel  O  why  dost  thou  condemn  us 
for  not  doing  good  1  Was  it  possible  for  us  to  do  any  thing  well  1 
Did  we  ever  abuse  the  power  of  doing  good  1  We  never  received  it, 
and  that  thou  knowest.  Wilt  thou,  the  Holy  One,  the  Just,  con- 
demn us  for  not  doing,  what  we  never  had  the  power  to  do*?  Wilt 
thou  condemn  us  for  nut  casting  down  the  stars  from  heaven  ?  For 
not  holding  the  winds  in  our  fisis  ]  Why  it  was  as  possible  tor  us  to 
do  this,  as  to  do  any  work  acceptable  in  thy  sight !  O  Lord,  correct 
us,  but  with  judgment ;  and  before  thou  plungest  us  into  everlasting- 
fire,  let  us  know,  how  it  was  ever  possible  for  us  to  escape  the 
damnation  of  hell  1" 

XXXin.  Or  how  could  they  have  escaped  (suppose  you  assign 
that  as  the  cause  of  their  condemnation,)  from  inward  sin  1  from  evil 
desires  1  from  unholy  tempers  and  vile  afltections  ?  Were  they  ever 
able  to  dehver  their  own  souls  ;  to  rescue  themselves  from  this  inward 
hein  If  so,  their  not  doing  it  may  justly  be  laid  to  their  charge,  and 
would  leave  them  without  excuse.  But  it  was  not  so:  they  never 
were  able  to  deliver  their  own  souls.  They  never  had  power  to  res- 
cue themselves  from  the  hands  of  those  bosom  enemies.  This  talent 
was  never  put  into  their  hands.  How  then  can  they  be  condemned 
for  hiding  it  in  the  earth  ]  For  non-improvement  of  what  they  never 
had?  Who  is  able  to  purify  a  corrupt  heart?  to  "  bring  a  clean  thing 
out  of  an  unclean  ]"  Is  man,  mere  man,  sulficient  for  this  ?  No, 
certainly.  God  alone.  To  him  only  can  the  polluted  of  heart  say, 
•^'Lord,  if  thou  wilt,  thoti  canst  make  me  clean."  But  what  if  he 
answer,  "  1  will  not,  because  I  will  not :  be  thou  unclean  still." 
Will  God  doom  that  man  to  the  bottomless  pit,  because  of  that  un-^ 
cleanness,  which  he  could  not  save  himself  from,  and  which  God 
could  have  saved  him  from,  but  would  not  1  Verily,  were  an  earthly 
king  to  execute  such  justice  as  this  upon  his  helpless  subjects,  it  might 
well  be  expected  that  the  vengeance  of  the  Lord  would  soon  sweep 
him  from  the  face  of  the  earth. 

XXXIV.  Perhaps  you  will  say,  "  They  are  not  condemned  for  ac- 
tual, but  for  original  sin."  What  do  you  mean  by  this  term  1  The 
inward  corruption  of  our  nature  ?  If  so,  it  has  been  spoken  of  before. 
Or  do  you  mean  the  sin  which  Adam  committed  in  Paradise  ?  That 
this  is  imputed  to  all  men,  I  allow  ;  yea,  that  by  reason  hereof  "  the 
whole  creation  groaneth  and  travaileth  in  pain  together  until  now." 
But  that  any  will  be  damned  for  this  alone,  I  allow  not,  till  you  show 
me  where  it  is  written.  Bring  me  plain  proof  from  the  Scripture, 
and  I  submit.     But  till  then  I  utterly  deny  it. 

XXXV.  Should  you  not  rather  say,  that  unbelief  is  the  damning 
sin]  and  that  those  who  are  condemned  in  that  day,  will  be  therefore 
condemned,  "  because  they  believed  not  on  the  name  of  the  only•^ 


39fi      .  PEEDESTINATION  CALMLT  CONSIDERED. 

begotten  Son  of  Godl"  But  could  they  believe  1  Was  not  this  faitlii 
both  the  gift  and  the  work  of  God  in  the  soul  1  And  was  it  not  a  gift 
which  he  had  eternally  decreed  never  to  give  them  ?  Was  it  not  a 
work  which  he  was  of  old  unchangeably  determined  never  to  work 
In  their  souls  1  Shall  these  men  then  be  condemned,  because  God 
would  not  work  ;  because  they  did  not  receive  what  God  would  not 
give  ?  Could  they  "  ungrasp  the  hold  of  his  right  hand,  or  force  Om- 
nipotence '.'" 

XXXVI.  Thei-e  is,  over  and  above,  a  pecuhar  difficulty  here. 
You  say,  Christ  did  not  die  for  those  men.  But  if  so,  there  was  an 
impossibility,  in  tha  very  nature  of  the  thing,  that  they  should  ever 
savingly  believe.  For  what  is  saving  faith,  but  "  a  confidence  in  God 
that  Christ  loved  me,  and  gave  himself  for  me  ?  Loved  thee,  thou  re- 
probate, gave  hiuiself  for  thee  /"  Away,  thou  hast  neither  part  nor 
lot  herein.  Thou  believe  in  Christ,  thou  accursed  spirit!  damned - 
or  ever  thou  wert  born  !  There  never  was  any  object  for  thy  faith  ; 
there  never  was  any  thing  for  thee  to  believe.  God  himself,  (thus 
must  you  speak,  to  be  consistent  with  yourself,)  with  all  his  omni- 
])otence,  could  not  have  made  thee  believe  Christ  atoned  for  thy 
sins,  unless  he  had  made  thee  believe  a  lie  ! 

XXXVII.  If,  then,  God  be  just,  there  cannot,  on  your  scheme, 
be  any  judgment  to  come.  We  may  add,  nor  any  future  state,  either 
of  reward  or  punishment.  If  there  be  such  a  state,  God  will  therein 
^^  render  to  every  man  according  to  his  works.  To  them  who,  by 
patient  continuance  in  well-doing,  seek  for  glory,  and  honour,  and  im- 
mortality, eternal  life  :  but  to  them  that  do  not  obey  the  truth,  but 
obey  unrighteousness,  indignation  and  wrath,  tribulation  and  anguish 
upon  every  soul  of  man  that  doeth  evil." 

But  how  is  this  reconcileable  with  your  scheme?  You  say,  the  re- 
probates cannot  but  do  evil ;  and  that  the  elect,  from  the  day  of 
God's  power,  cannot  but  continue  in  well-doing.  You  suppose  all 
this  is  unchangeably  decreed :  in  consequence  whereof,  God  acts  ir- 
resistibly on  the  one,  and  Satan  on  the  other.  Then  it  is  impossible 
ibr  either  one  or  the  other,  to  help  acting  as  they  do  :  or  rather,  to 
help  being  acted  upon  in  the  manner  wherein  they  are.  For  if  we 
speak  properly,  neither  the  one  nor  the  other  can  be  said  to  act  at 
all.  Can  a  stone  be  said  to  act  v/hen  it  is  thrown  out  of  a  sUng  1  or 
a  ball,  when  it  is  projected  from  a  cannon  1  No  more  can  a  man  be 
said  to  act,  if  he  be  only  moved  by  a  force  he  cannot  resist.  But  if 
the  case  be  thus,  you  leave  no  room  either  for  reward  or  punishment. 
Shall  the  stone  be  rewarded  for  rising  from  the  sling,  or  punished  for 
falling  down  1  Shall  the  cannon-ball  be  rewarded  for  flying  towards 
the  sun,  or  punished  for  receding  from  it  ?  As  incapable  of  eithei- 
punishment  or  reward  is  the  man,  who  is  supposed  to  be  impelled  by 
a  force  he  cannot  resist.  Justice  can  have  no  place  in  rewarding  or 
punishing  mere  machines,  driven  to  and  fro  by  an  external  force. 
So  that  your  supposition  of  God's  ordaining  from  eternity  whatsoever 
should  be  done  to  the  end  of  the  world,  as  well  as  that  of  God's  acting 
•fvesistibly  in  the  elect,  and  Satan's  acting  irresistibly  in  the  repro 


PREDESTINATION   CALMLY   COKSIDERED.  398 

bates  :  utterly  overthrows  the  Scripture  doctrine  of  rewards  and  pun- 
ishments, as  well  as  of  a  judgment  to  come. 

XXXVI!!.  Thus  ill  does  that  election  which  implies  reprobatioUj 
agree  with  the  Scripture  account  of  God's  Justice.  And  does  it 
agree  any  better  with  his  Truth  1  Hoav  will  you  reconcile  it  with 
those  plain  passages.  ,^Ezek  xviii.  23,  &c.)  "  Have  I  any  pleasure 
at  all,  that  the  wicked  should  die,  sdith  the  Lord  God  1  And  not  that 
he;  should  return  from  his  ways  and  live  1  Cast  away  from  you  all 
your  transp;re-3sions  whereby  ye  have  transgressed, — for  why  will  ye 
die,  O  house  of  Israel  1  For  I  have  no  pleasure  in  the  death  of  him 
that  dieth,  saith  the  Lord  :  wherefore  turn  yourselves  and  live  ye." 

Ezek.  xxxiii.  1 1,  &c.  "  As  I  live,  saith  the  Lord  God,  I  have  no 
pleasure  in  the  death  of  the  wicked  :  but  that  the  wicked  turn  froni 
his  way  and  live.  Turn  ye,  turn  ye  from  your  evil  ways  ;  for  why 
will  ye  die,  O  house  of  Israel  ]" 

XXXIX.  But  perhaps  you  will  say,  "  These  ought  to  be  limited 
and  explained  by  other  passages  of  Scripture  ;  wherein  this  doctrine 
is  as  clearly  ''.tfirmed  as  it  is  denied  in  these  1"  I  must  ansv/er  very 
plainly.  If  this  vvere  true,  we  must  give  up  all  the  Scriptures  tO" 
gether  :  nor  ^vould  the  infidels  allow  the  Bible  so  honourable  a  title, 
as  that  of  "  a  cunningly  devised  fable."  But  it  is  not  true.  It  has 
no  colour  of  truth.  It  is  absolutely,  notoriously  hhe.  To  tear  up 
the  very  roots  of  reprobation,  ana  of  all  doctrines  that  have  a  neces- 
sary connection  therewith,  God  declares  in  his  word  these  threo 
things,  and  that  explicitly,  in  so  many  terms,  L  "Cbnst  died  for  all," 
(2  Cor.  V.  14,)  namely,  all  that  were  dead  m  sin,  as  the  words  imme~' 
diately  following  fix  the  sense  :  here  is'the  fact  afhimed.  2.  "He  is 
the  propitiation  for  the  sms  of  the  whole  world,"  (1  John  ii.  2,)  even 
of  all  those  for  whom  he  died  :  hare  is  the  consequence  of  his  dying  tor 
all.  And,  3.  "  He  died  for  all,  that  they  should  not  live  unto  them- 
selves, but  unto  him  which  died  for  them,"  (2  Cor.  v.  15,)  that  they 
might  be  saved  from  their  sins  :  here  is  the  design,  the  end  of  his 
dying  for  them.  Now  show  me  the  scriptures  wherein  God  declares 
in  equally  express  terms,  I.  •'  Christ  did  not  die  for  all,"  but  for 
some  only.  2.  "  Christ  is  not  the  propitiation  for  the  sins  of  the 
world  ;"  and,  3.  "  He  did  not  die  for  all,  at  least  not  with  that  in- 
tent, that  they  should  live  unto  him  who  died  t'ur  them."  Show  me^ 
I  say,  the  scriptures  that  affirm  these  three  things  in  equally  express 
terms.  You  know  there  are  none.  Nor  is  it  possible  to  evade  the 
foree  of  those  above  recited,  l-ut  by  supplying  i'l  number  what  is 
wanting  in  weight  ;  by  heaping  abundance  of  tex^s  together,  whereby 
(though  none  of  Uiem  speak  home  to  the  point)  the  patrons  of  that 
opinion,  dazzle  the  -^yes  of  the  unwary,  and  quite  overlay  the  under- 
standing both  of  themselves,  and  those  that  hear  them. 

XL.  To  proceed.  What  an  account  does  this  doctrine  give  of 
the  sincerity  of  God  in  a  thousand  declarations,  such  as  these  :  "  O 
that  there  were  such  a  heart  in  them  that  they  would  fear  me,  and 
keep  ray  commandments  always  !  that  it  might  be  well  with  th':^m, 
and  with  their  children  forever."  Deut.  v.  29.     <'  My  people  woiil<l 


394  PREDESTINATION  CALMLY  CONSIDERED. 

not  hear  my  voice,  and  Israel  would  not  obey  me.  So  I  gave  theifl 
up  unto  their  own  hearts'  lusts,  and  let  them  follow  their  own  ima- 
ginations. O  that  my  people  would  have  hearkened  unto  me  !  Fo) 
xf  Israel  had  walked  in  my  ways,  I  should  soon  have  put  down  their 
enemies,  and  turned  my  hand  against  their  adversaries."  Ps.  Ixxxi, 
12,  &c.  And  all  this  time  you  suppose  God  had  unchangeably  or- 
dained, that  there  never  should  be  such  a  heart  in  them  !  that  it  never 
should  be  possible  for  the  people  whom  he  thus  seemed  to  lament 
over,  to  hearken  unto  him,  or  to  walk  in  his  ivays  ! 

XLI.  How  clear  and  strong  is  the  reasoning  of  Dr.  Watts  on 
this  head  1  "  It  is  very  hard  indeed  to  vindicate  the  sincerity  of  the 
blessed  God  or  his  Son,  in  their  universal  offers  of  grace  and  salva- 
tion to  men,  and  their  sending  ininisters  with  such  messages  and  in- 
vitations to  accept  of  mercy,  if  there  be  not,  at  least,  a  conditional 
pardon  and  salvation  provided  for  them. 

"His  ministers  indeed,  as  they  know  not  the  event  of  things,  may 
be  sincere  in  oifering  salvation  to  all  persons,  according  to  their  ge- 
neral commission,  «  Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the  gospel 
to  every  creature.'  But  how  can  God  or  Christ  be  sincere  in  send- 
ing them  with  this  commission,  to  offer  his  grace  to  all  men,  if  God 
lias  not  provided  such  grace  for  all  men,  no,  not  so  much  as  condi- 
tionally 1 

"  It  is  hard  to  suppose,  that  the  great  God,  who  is  truth  itself,  and 
faithful  in  all  his  deahngs,  should  call  upon  dying  men,  to  trust  in  a 
Saviour  for  eternal  life,  when  this  Saviour  has  not  eternal  life  in- 
trusted with  him,  to  give  them  if  they  do  as  he  requires.  It  is  hard 
to  conceive  how  the  great  Governor  of  the  world  can  be  sincere  in 
inviting  sinners,  who  are  on  the  brink  of  hell,  to  cast  themselves 
apon  an  empty  word  of  invitation,  a  mere  shadoiv  and  appearance 
of  support,  if  there  be  nothing  real  to  bear  them  up  from  those  deeps 
of  destruction,  nothing  but  mere  words  and  empty  invitations !  Can 
we  think  that  the  righteous  and  holy  God  would  encourage  his  mi- 
nisters, to  call  them  to  leave  and  rest  the  weight  of  their  immortal 
concerns  upon  a  gospel,  a  covenant  of  grace,  a  Mediator,  and  his 
merit  and  righteousness  ;  all  which  are  a  mere  nothing  with  regard 
to  them,  a  heap  of  empty  names,  an  unsupporting  void  which  can- 
not uphold  them  ?" 

XLI  I.  Our  blessed  Lord  does  indisputably  command  and  invite 
"  all  men  every  where  to  repent."  He  calleth  all.  He  sends  his 
ambassadors  in  his  name,  "  to  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature." 
He  himself  "  preached  deliverance  to  the  captives,"  without  any  hint 
of  restriction  or  limitation.  But  now  in  what  manner  do  you  repre- 
sent him,  while  he  is  employed  in  this  work  1  You  suppose  him  to 
be  standing  at  the  prison  doors,  having  the  keys  thereof  in  his 
hands,  and  to  be  continually  inviting  the  prisoners  to  come  forth, 
commanding  them  to  accept  of  that  invitation,  urging  every  motive 
yp-hich  can  possibly  induce  them  to  comply  with  that  command ;  add- 
ing the  most  precious  promises,  if  they  obey ;  the  most  dreadful 
threatenings,  if  they  obey  not :  and  all  this  time  you  suppose  him  to 


TKEUESTINATION  CALMLY  CONSIDERED.  395 

ue  unalterably  determined  in  himself,  never  to  open  the  doors  foi 
them  I  Even  while  he  is  crying,  ''  Come  ye,  come  ye,  from  that  evil 
place ;  for  -why  will  ye  die,  O  house  of  Israel  ?"  "  Why  '?  (might 
one  of  them  reply,)  because  we  cannot  help  it.  We  cannot  help 
ourselves;  and  thou  icilt  not  help  us.  It  is  not  in  our  power  to 
break  the  gates  of  brass :  and  it  is  not  thy  pleasure  to  open  them. 
Why  icill  ye  diel  We  must  die  :  because  it  is  not  thy  will  to  save  us." 
Alas  !  my  brethren  !  what  kind  of  sincerity  is  this,  which  you  ascribe 
to  God  our  Saviour  ? 

XLIII.  So  ill  do  election  and  reprobation  agree  with  the  truth  and 
sincerity  of  God.  But  do  they  not  agree  least  of  all  with  the  scrip- 
tural account  of  his  love  and  goodness  1  that  attribute  which  God 
peculiarly  claims,  wherein  he  glories  above  all  the  rest.  It  is  not 
written,  God  is  justice,  or  God  is  truth,  (although  he  is  just  and  true 
in  all  his  ways  ;)  but  it  is  written,  God  is  love,  love  in  the  abstract, 
without  bounds;  and  "there  is  no  end  of  his  goodness."  His  love 
extends  even  to  those  who  neither  love  nor  fear  him.  He  is  good, 
even  to  the  evil  and  the  unthankful :  yea,  without  any  exception  or 
limitation,  to  all  the  children  of  men.  For  "  the  Lord  is  loving  (or 
good)  to  every  man,  and  his  mercy  is  over  all  his  works." 

But  how  is  God  good  or  loving  to  a  reprobate,  or  one  that  is  not 
elected  ?  (You  may  choose  either  term  :  lor  if  none  but  the  uncon- 
ditionally elect  are  saved,  it  comes  precisely  to  the  same  thing.)  You 
cannot  say,  he  is  an  object  of  the  love  or  goodness  of  God,  with  re- 
gard to  his  eternal  state,  whom  he  created  (says  Mr.  Calvin,  plainly 
and  fairly,)  in  vitce  contumeliam  et  mortis  exitium,  to  live  a  reproach  and 
die  everlastingly.  Surely  no  one  can  dream  that  the  goodness  of 
God  is  at  all  concerned  with  this  man's  eternal  state.  "  However, 
God  is  good  to  him  in  this  world."  What !  when  by  reason  of  God's 
unchangeable  decree,  it  had  been  good  for  this  man  never  to  have 
been  born,  when  his  very  birth  was  a  curse,  not  a  blessing  1  "Well, 
but  he  now  enjoys  many  of  the  gifts  of  God,  both  gifts  of  nature 
and  of  providence.  He  has  food  and  raiment,  and  comforts  of  va- 
rious kinds.  And  are  not  all  these  great  blessings  ?"  No,  not  to 
him.  At  the  price  he  is  to  pay  for  them,  every  one  of  these  also  is 
u  curse.  Every  one  of  these  comforts  is,  by  an  eternal  decree,  to 
cost  him  a  thousand  pangs  in  hell.  For  every  moment's  pleasure 
which  he  now  enjoys,  he  is  to  suffer  the  torments  of  more  than  a 
thousand  years  :  for  the  smoke  of  that  pit  which  is  preparing  for 
liim,  ascendeth  up  for  ever  and  ever  !  God  knev/  this  would  be  the 
fruit  of  whatever  he  should  enjoy,  before  the  vapour  of  life  fled 
away.  He  designed  it  should.  It  was  his  very  purpose  in  giving 
him  those  enjoyments.  So  that  by  all  these,  according  to  your  ac- 
count, he  is,  in  truth  and  reality,  only  fattening  the  ox  for  the  slaugh- 
ter. "  Nay,  but  God  gives  him  grace  too."  Yes  ;  but  what  kind 
of  grace  1  Saving  grace  you  own  he  has  none  ;  none  of  a  saving 
nature.  And  the  common  grace  he  has,  was  not  given  with  any  de- 
sign to  save  his  soul :  nor  with  any  design  to  do  him  any  good  at  all ; 
but  only  to  restrain  him  from  hurting  the  elect.     So  far  from  doing 


S96  TREDESTINATION   CALMLY   CONSIDERED. 

him  good,  that  this  grace  also  necessarily  increases  his  damnation. 
And  God  knows  this,  you  say  ;  and  designed  it  should ;  it  was  one 
great  end  for  which  he  gave  it !  Then  I  desire  to  know,  how  is  God 
good  or  loving  to  this  man,  either  with  regard  to  time  or  eternity  ] 

XLIV.  Let  us  suppose  a  particular  instance.  Here  stands  a  man 
who  is  reprobated  from  all  eternity  ;  or,  if  you  would  express  it 
more  smoothly,  one  who  is  not  elected,  whom  God  eternally  decreed 
to  pass  by.  Thou  hast  nothing  therefore  to  expect  from  God  after 
death,  but  to  be  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire  burning  with  brimstone  ; 
God  having  consigned  thy  unborn  soul  to  hell,  by  a  decree  which 
cannot  pass  away.  And  from  the  time  thou  wast  born  under  the 
irrevocable  curse  of  God,  thou  canst  have  no  peace.  For  there  is 
no  peace  to  the  wicked,  and  such  thou  art  doomed  to  continue,  even 
from  thy  mother's  womb.  Accordingly  God  giveth  thee  of  this 
world's  goods  on  purpose  to  enhance  thy  damnation.  He  giveth 
thee  now  substance  or  friends,  in  order  hereafter  to  heap  the  more 
coals  of  fire  upon  thy  head.  He  filleth  thee  with  food,  he  maketh 
thee  fat  and  well-liking,  to  make  thee  a  more  specious  sacrifice  to 
his  vengeance.  Good-nature,  generosity,  a  good  understanding,  va- 
rious knowledge,  it  may  be,  or  eloquence,  are  the  flowers  wherewith 
he  adorneth  thee,  thou  poor  victim,  before  thou  art  brought  to  the 
slaughter.  Thou  hast  grace  too  I  But  what  grace  ?  Not  saving 
grace.  That  is  not  for  thee,  but  for  the  elect  only.  Thine  may 
properly  be  termed  damning  grace ;  since  it  is  not  only  such  in  the 
event,  but  in  the  intention.  Thou  receivedst  it  of  God  for  that  very 
end.  That  thou  mightest  receive  the  greater  damnation.  It  was 
given,  not  to  convert  thee,  but  only  to  convince  ;  not  to  make  thee 
without  sin,  but  without  excuse ;  not  to  destroys  but  to  arm  the  worm 
that  never  dieth,  and  to  blow  up  the  fire  that  never  shall  be 
quenched  ! 

XLV.  Now  I  beseech  you  to  consider  calmly,  how  is  God  good 
or  loving  to  this  man  ?  Is  not  this  such  love  as  makes  your  blood 
run  cold  ?  as  causes  the  ears  of  him  that  heareth  to  tingle'?  And  can 
you  believe  there  is  that  man  on  earth  or  in  hell,  who  can  truly  tell 
God,  "  Thus  hast  thou  done  ?"  Can  you  think,  that  the  loving,  the 
merciful  God  ever  dealt  thus  with  any  soul  which  he  had  made  1 
But  you  must  and  do  believe  this,  if  you  believe  unconditional  elec- 
tion. For  it  holds  reprobation  in  its  bosom  :  they  never  were,  never 
can  be  divided.  Take  then  your  choice.  If  for  the  sake  of  election 
you  will  swallow  reprobation,  well.  But  if  you  cannot  digest  this, 
you  must  necessarily  give  up  unconditional  election. 

XLVI.  "  But  you  cannot  do  this  :  for  then  you  should  be  called  a 
Pelagian,  an  Arminian,  and  what  not."  And  are  you  afraid  of  hard 
names  1  Then  you  have  not  begun  to  be  a  disciple  of  Jesus  Christ. 
"  No,  that  is  not  the  case.  But  you  are  afraid,  if  you  do  not  hold 
election,  you  must  hold  free-will,  and  so  rob  God  of  his  glory,  in 
man's  salvation." 

I  answer,  1.  Many  of  the  greatest  maintainers  of  election,  utterly 
deny  the  consequence,  and  do  not  allow,  that  even  natural  free-will 


TREDESTINATION  CALMLY   CONSIDERED.  397 

m  man,  is  repugnant  to  God's  glory.  These  accordingly  assert,  that 
every  man  living  has  a  measure  of  natural  Iree-will.  So  the  Assem- 
bly of  Divines,  (and  therein  the  body  of  Calvinists  both  in  England 
and  Scotland,)  "  God  hath  endued  the  will  of  man  with  that  natural 
liberty,  that  is  neither  forced,  nor,  by  any  absolute  necessity  of  nature 
tletermined  to  do  good  or  evil  :"  chap,  ix.  And  this  they  assert  ol 
man  in  his  fallen  state,  even  before  he  receives  the  grace  of  God. 

But  I  do  not  carry  free-will  so  far ;  (I  mean  not  in  moral  things,) 
natural  free-ioill,  in  the  present  state  of  mankind,  I  do  not  understand, 
I  only  assert,  that  there  is  a  measure  of  free-will  supernaturally  re- 
stored to  every  man,  together  with  that  supernatural  lighr,  which  "en- 
lightens every  man  that  cometh  into  the  world."  But  indeed,  whether 
this  be  natural  or  not,  as  to  your  objection  it  matters  not.  For  that 
equally  lies  against  both,  against  any  free-will  of  any  kind  :  your  asser- 
tion being  thus,  "If  man  has  any  free-will,  God  cannot  have  the 
whole  glory  of  his  solvation."  Or,  "  It  is  not  so  much  for  the  glory 
of  God,  to  save  man  as  a  free-agent,  put  into  a  capacity  of  concurring 
Avith  his  grace  on  the  one  hand,  and  of  resisting  it  on  the  other ;  as  to 
save  him  in  the  way  of  a  necessary  agent,  by  a  power  which  he  can- 
not possibly  resist." 

XLVII.  With  regard  to  the  former  of  these  assertions,  "  If  man 
has  any  free-will,  then  God  cannot  have  the  whole  glory  of  his  salva- 
tion," is  your  meaning  this  :  "  If  man  has  any  power  to  work  out  his 
own  salvalion,  then  God  cannot  have  the  whole  glory  1"  If  it  be,  I 
must  ask  again,  What  do  you  mean  by  God's  "having  the  whole 
glory '?"  Do  you  mean,  "  his  doing  the  whole  work,  without  any  con- 
currence on  man's  part  V  If  so,  your  assertion  is,  "  If  man  do  at 
all  icork  together  ivith  God,  inicorking out  his  own  salvation,  then  God 
<loes  not  do  the  whole  work,  without  man's  working  together  with  him,''' 
Most  true;  most  sure  ;  but  cannot  you  see  how  God  nevertheless 
may  have  all  the  glory  ]  Why  the  very  power  to  "  work  together 
Avith  him,"  was  from  God.  Therefore,  to  him  is  all  the  glory.  Has 
not  even  experience  taught  you  this  ]  Have  you  not  often  felt,  in  a 
particular  temptation,  power  either  to  resist  or  yield  to  the  grace  of 
God  1  And  when  you  have  yielded  to  work  together  with  him,  did 
jou  not  find  it  very  possible,  notwithstanding,  to  give  him  all  the  glory  ? 
So  that  both  experience  and  Scripture  are  against  you  here,  and 
make  it  clear  to  every  impartial  inquirer,  that  though  man  hvis  free- 
dom to  work,  or  not  work  together  with  God,  yet  may  God  have  the 
Avhole  glory  of  his  salvation. 

XLVII  I.  If,  then,  you  say,  "  We  ascribe  to  God  alone,  the  Avhole 
glory  of  our  salvation,"  I  answer.  So  do  we  too.  If  you  add,  "  Nay, 
but  we  affirm,  that  God  alone  does  the  whole  work,  without  man's 
working  at  all ;"  in  one  sense,  we  allow  this  also.  We  allow  it  is 
-the  work  of  God  alone,  to  justify,  to  sanctify,  and  to  glorify,  which 
three  comprehend  the  whole  of  salvation.  Yet  we  cannot  allow, 
that  man  can  only  resist,  and  not  in  any  wise  work  iogetlier  with  God : 
or,  that  God  is  so  the  whole  worker  of  our  salvation,  as  to  exclude 
man's  workinsj  at  all.     This  I  dare  not  say  ;  for  I  cannot  prove  it  bv 

Vol.  9.— L  1  r  . 


398  PREDESTINATION   CALMLY    CONSIBERE0. 

Scripture  :  nay,  it  is  flatly  contrary  thereto  :  for  the  Scripture  is  e%-^ 
press,  that  (having  received  power  from  God)  we  are  to  "  work  out 
our  own  salvation  t"  and  that  (after  the  work  of  God  is  begun  in  our 
souls)  we  are  "  workers  together  with  him." 

XLIX.  Your  objection,  proposed  in  another  form,  is  this  :  "  It  is 
not  so  much  for  the  glory  of  God,  to  save  man  as  a  free-agent,  put 
into  a  capacity  of  either  concurring  with,  or  resisting  his  grace  ;  as  to 
save  him  in  the  way  of  a  necessary  agent,  by  a  power  which  he  can- 
not possibly  resist."   • 

O  that  the  Lord  would  answer  for  himself !  that  he  would  arise 
and  maintain  his  own  cause  !  that  he  would  no  longer  suffer  his  ser- 
vants, few  as  they  are,  to  weaken  one  another's  hands,  and  to  be 
wearied  not_ only  with  "the  contradiction  of  sinners,"  but  even  oi 
those  who  are  in  a  measure  saved  from  sin  !  "  Wo  is  me  that  1  am 
constrained  to  dwell  with  Meshech  !  among  them  that  are  enemies 
to  peace  !  I  labour  for  peace  :  but  when  I  speak  thereof,  they  [still] 
make  themselves  ready  for  battle.'' 

L.  If  it  must  be  then,  let  us  look  one  another  in  the  face.  How 
is  it  more  for  the  glory  of  God,  to  save  man  irresistibly,  than  to  save 
him  as  a  free-agent,  by  such  grace  as  he  may  either  concur  with  or 
resist  ?  I  fear  you  have  a  confused,  unscriptural  notion  of  "the  glory 
of  God."  What  do  you  mean  by  that  expi  ession  ?  The  glory  oi 
God,  strictly  speaking,  in  his  glorious  essence  and  his  attributes, 
which  have  been  ever  of  old.  And  this  glory  admits  of  no  increase, 
being  the  same  yesterday,  to-day,  and  for  ever.  But  the  Scripture 
frequently  speaks  of  the  glory  of  God,  in  a  sense  something  different 
from  this  :  meaning  thereby,  the  manifestation  of  his  essential  glory, 
of  his  eternal  power  and  godhead,  and  of  his  glorious  attributes,  more 
especially  his  justice,  mercy,  and  truth.  And  it  is  iu  this  sense  alone, 
that  the  glory  of  God  is  said  to  be  advanced  by  man.  Now  then  thi? 
is  the  point  which  it  lies  on  you  to  prove,  "  that  it  does  more  emi- 
nently manifest  the  glorious  attributes  of  God,  more  especially  his 
justice,  mercy,  and  truth,  to  save  man  irresistibly,  than  to  save  him 
by  such  grace  as  it  is  in  his  power  either  to  concur  with,  or  to  resist." 

LI,  But  you  must  not  imagine,  I  will  be  so  unwise  as  to  engage 
you  here  on  this  single  point.  I  shall  not  now  dispute,  (which  yet 
might  be  done,)  Avhether  salvation  by  irresistible  grace,  (which  in- 
deed makes  man  a  mere  machine,  and  consequently  no  more  reward- 
able  than  punishable,)  whether,  1  say,  salvation  by  irresistible  grace, 
considered  apart  from  its  consequences,  manifest  the  glory  of  God 
more  or  less,  than  salvation  by  grace  which  may  be  resisted.  Not 
so  ;  (but  by  the  assistance  of  God,)  I  shall  take  your  whole  scheme 
together :  irresistible  grace  for  the  elect,  implying  the  denial  of  saving 
grace  to  all  others :  or  unconditional  election,  with  its  inseparable 
companion,  unconditional  reprobation. 

The  case  is  clearly  this.  You  may  drive  me,  on  the  one  hand, 
unless  I  will  contradict  myself,  or  retract  my  principles,  to  own  a 
measure  of  free-will  in  every  man,  (though  not  by  nature  as  the  As- 
sembly of  Divines.)  And  on  the  other  hand,  I  can  drive  you,  and 
eyery  assertor  of  unconditional  election,  unless  you  will  contradict 


PREDESTINATION   CALMLY   CONSIDERED.  399 

yourself,  or  retract  your  principles,  to  own  unconditional  repro- 
bation. 

Stand  forth  then,  Free-will,  on  the  one  side,  and  Reprobation  on 
the  other.  And  let  us  see,  whether  the  one  scheme  attended  with 
the  absurdity  {as  you  think  it)  of  free-will ;  or  the  other  scheme,  at- 
tended with  the  absurdity  of  reprobation,  be  the  more  defensible. 
Let  us  see  (if  it  please  the  Father  of  Lights  to  open  the  eyes  of  our 
understanding)  which  of  these  is  more  for  the  glory  of  God,  for  the 
display  of  his  glorious  attributes,  for  the  manifestation  of  his  wisdom, 
justice,  and  mercy  to  the  sons  of  men. 

LII.  First,  his  Wisdom.     If  man  be  in  some  measure  free,  if  by 
that  Light  which  "  lightcneth  every  man  that  comes  into  the  Avorld,"' 
there  be  "  set  before  him  life  and  death,  good  and  evil ;"  then  how 
gloriously  does  the  manifold  wisdom  of  God  appear  in  the  whole  eco- 
nomy of  man's  salvation  1  Being  willing  that  all  men  should  be  saved, 
yet  not  willing  to  force  them  thereto  ;  willing  that  men  should  be 
saved,  yet  not  as  trees  or  stones,  but  as  men,  as  reasonable  creatures, 
endued  with  understanding  to  discern  what  is  good,  and  liberty, 
cither  to  accept  or  refuse  it  1  how  does  he  suit  the  whole  scheme  of 
his  dispensations  to  this  his  Trpo-^so-ii^  his  plan,  the  counsel  of  his  will  ? 
His   first  step  is,  to  enlighten  the   understanding,   by  that  general 
knowledge  of  good  and  evil.     To   this  he  adds   many   secret  re- 
proofs, if  they  act  contrary  to  this  light ;  many  inward  convictions, 
which  there  is  not  a  man  on  earth  who  has  not  often  felt.     At  other 
times  he  gently  moves  their  wills,  he  draws  and  woos  them  (as  it  werel 
to  walk  in  the  light.     He  instils  into  their  hearts  desires,  though  per- 
haps they  knew  not  from  whence  they  came.     Thus  far  he  proceeds 
with  all  the  children  of  men,  yea,  even  those  who  have  not  the  know- 
ledge of  his  written  word.     But  in  this,  what  a  field  of  wisdom  is 
displayed,  suppose  man  to  be  in  some  degree  a  free-agent  ?  How  is 
every  part  of  it  suited  to  this  end  ]  To  save  man  as  man ;  to  set  life 
and  death  before  him,  and  then  persuade  (not  force  him)  to  choose 
life.     According  to  this  grand  purpose  of  God,  a  perfect  rule  is  first 
■  set  before  him  to  serve  as  a  "  lantern  to  his  feet,  and  a  light  in  all  his 
paths."     This  is  offered  to  him  in  the  form  of  a  law,  enforced  with 
the  strongest  sanctions,  the  most  glorious  rewards  for  them  that  obey, 
the  severest  penalties  on  them  that  break  it.     To  reclaim  these, 
God  uses  all  manner  of  ways  ;  he  tries  every  avenue  of  their  souls. 
He  applies  sometimes  to  their  understanding,  showing  them  the  folly 
of  their  sins  :  sometimes   to  their  affections,  tenderly  expostulating 
with  them  for  their  ingratitude,  and  even  condescending  to  ask, 
"  What  could   I  have  done  for  you  (consistent  with  my  eternal  pur- 
pose not  to  force  you)  which  I   have  not  done  1"     He  intermixes: 
sometimes  threats,  "  Except  ye  repent,  ye  shall  all  likewise  perish  ;" 
sometimes  promises,  "  Your  sins  and  your  iniquities  will  1  remember 
no  more."     Now  what  wisdom  is  seen  in  all  this,  if  man  may  indeed 
choose  hfe  or  death  1  But  if  every  man  be  unalterably  consigned  to 
heaven  or  hell,  before  he  comes  from  his  mother's  womb,  where  is  the 
wisdom  of  this;  of  dealing  with  him  in  every  respect,  ^5  if  he  were 


400  PBEDESTINATION    CALMLY    CONSIDEREP/^ 

free,  when  it  is  no  such  thing  ?  What  avails,  what  can  this  whole 
dispensation  of  God  avail  a  reprobate  ?  What  are  promises  or  threats, 
expostulations  or  reproofs,  to  thee,  thou  fire-brand  of  hell  *?  What  in- 
deed (O  my  brethren,  suffer  me  to  speak,  for  /  am  full  of  matter)  but 
empty  force,  but  mere  grimace,  sounding  words  that  mean  just  no- 
thing ?  O  where  (to  waive  all  other  considerations  now)  is  the  tds- 
dom  of  this  proceeding  1  To  what  end  does  all  this  apparatus  serve  ? 
If  you  say,  to  ensure  his  damnation  ;  alas !  what  needeth  that  ?  see- 
ing this  was  ensured  before  the  foundation  of  the  world.  Let  all  man- 
kind, then,  judue,  which  of  these  accounts  is  more  for  the  glory  oi 
God's  wisdom. 

LIII.  We  come,  next,  to  his  justice.  Now  if  a  man  be  capable 
of  choosing  good  or  evil,  then  he  is  a  proper  object  of  the  justice  of 
God,  acquitting  or  condemning,  rewarding  or  punishing.  But  other- 
\vise  he  is  not.  A  mere  machine  is  not  capable  of  being  either  ac- 
quitted or  condemned.  Justice  cannot  punish  a  stone  for  falling  to 
ihe  ground  ;  nor  (on  your  scheme)  a  man  for  falling  into  sin.  For  he 
can  no  more  help  it  than  the  slone,  if  he  be  (in  your  sense)  "  fore- 
ordained to  this  condemnation."  Why  does  this  man  sin  ?  "  Ho 
cannot  cease  from  sin  "?"  Why  cannot  he  cease  from  sin  ?  "  Be- 
cause he  has  no  saving  grace."  Why  has  he  no  saving  grace  ? 
■'  Because  God  of  his  own  good  pleasure  hath  eternally  decreed,  not 
to  give  it  him."  Is  he  then  under  an  unavoidable  necessity  of  sin- 
ning ?  "  Yes  :  as  much  as  a  stone  is  of  falling.  He  never  had  an\ 
more  power  to  cease  from  evil,  than  a  stone  has  to  hang  in  the  air." 
And  shall  this  man,  for  not  doing  what  he  never  could  do,  and  for 
<loing  what  he  never  could  avoid,  be  sentenced  to  depart  into  everlast- 
ing fire  prepared  for  the  Devil  and  his  angels  ?  "  Yes,  because  it  is 
the  sovereign  will  of  God.'"' — Then  '  you  have  either  found  a  new 
God  or  made  one !'  This  is  not  the  God  of  the  Christians.  Oui- 
God  is  just  in  all  his  ways  :  he  reapeth  not  where  he  hath  not  strew- 
ed. He  requireth  only  according  to  what  lie  hath  given  :  and  where 
he  hath  given  little,  little  is  required.  The  glory  of  his  justice  is  this, 
to  '  reward  every  man  according  to  his  works.'  Hereby  is  that 
glorious  attribute  shown,  evidently  set  forth  before  men  and  angels, 
in  that  it  is  accepted  of  every  man  according  to  that  he  hadi,  and  not 
according  to  that  he  hath  not.  This  is  that  just  decree  which  cannoi 
pass  away  either  in  time  or  eternity. 

Thus  one  scheme  gives  the  justibe  of  God  its  full  scope,  leaves 
room  for  it  to  be  largely  displayed  in  all  its  branches  :  whereas  the 
other  makes  it  a  mere  shadow,  yea,  brings  it  absolutely  to  nothing. 

LIV.  Just  as  gloriously  does  it  display  his  Love  !  supposing  it  to 
be  fixed  on  one  in  ten  of  his  creatures !  (might  I  not  rather  say,  on 
one  in  a  hundred  ? )  and  to  have  no  regard  to  the  rest.  Let  the  ninety 
and  nine  reprobates  perish  without  mercy.  It  is  enough  for  him  to 
love  and  save  the  one  elect.  But  why  will  he  have  mercy  on  these 
alone,  and  leave  all  those  to  inevitable  destruction  ':  "  He  will — be- 
cause he  will !"  O  that  God  would  give  unto  you  who  thus  speak 
meekness  of  wisdom !  then  would  I  ask.  What  would  the  universas 
voice  of  mankind  pronounce  of  the  ma)i  that  should  act  thus  ?    Thu" 


PREDESTINATION   CALMLY    CONSIDERED.  401 

being  able  to  deliver  millions  of  men  from  death,  with  a  single  breatli 
of  his  mouth,  should  refuse  to  save  any  more  than  one  in  a  hundred, 
and  say,  "  I  will  not,  because  I  will  not !"  How  then  do  you  exalt 
the  mercy  of  God,  when  you  ascribe  such  a  proceeding  to  him  ? 
What  a  strange  comment  is  this  on  his  own  word,  that  "  his  mercy  is 
over  all  his  works !" 

Do  you  think  to  evade  this  by  saying,  "  His  mercy  is  more  display- 
ed in  irresistibly  saving  the  elect,  than  it  would  be  in  giving  the  choice 
of  salvation  to  all  men,  and  actual  salvation  to  those  that  accepted  it  ?" 
How  so  1  Make  this  appear  if  you  can.  What  proof  do  you  bring 
of  this  assertion  ?  I  appeal  to  every  impartial  mind,  whether  the  re- 
verse be  not  obviously  true  l  Whether  the  mercy  of  God  would  not 
be  far  less  gloriously  displayed,  in  saving  a  few  by  his  irresistible 
power,  and  leaving  all  the  rest  without  help,  without  hope,  to  perish 
everlastingly,  than  in  offering  salvation  to  every  creature,  actually 
saving  all  that  consent  thereto,  and  doing  for  the  rest,  all  that  infinite 
wisdom,  almighty  power,  and  boundless  love  can  do,  without  forcing 
th^n  to  be  saved,  .which  would  be  to  destroy  the  very  nature  that  he 
had  given  them.  I  appeal,  I  say,  to  every  impartial  mind,  and  to  your 
own,  if  not  quite  blinded  with  prejudice,  which  of  these  accounts 
places  the  mercy  of  God  in  the  most  advantageous  light  ? 

LV.  Perhaps  you  will  say,  "  But  there  are  other  attributes  of  God, 
namely,  his  sovereignty,  uuchangeableness,  and  faithfulness.  I  hope 
you  do  not  deny  these."  I  answer.  No ;  by  no  means.  The 
sovereignty  of  God  appears,  1.  In  fixing  from  eternity  that  decree 
touchiiig  the  sons  of  men,  "  He  that  believeth  shall  be  saved :  He 
that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned."  2.  In  all  the  general  circum- 
stances of  creation  ;  in  the  time,  the  place,  the  manner  of  creating 
all  things :  in  appointing  the  number  and  kinds  of  creatures,  visible 
and  invisible :  3.  In  allotting  the  natural  endowments  of  men,  these 
to  one,  and  those  to  another :  4.  In  disposing  the  time,  place,  and 
other  outward  circumstances,  (as  parents,  relations,)  attending  the 
birth  of  everyone:  5.  In  dispensmg  the  various  gifts  of  the  Spirit, 
for  the  edification  of  his  church :  6.  In  ordering  all  temporal  things, 
(as  health,  fortune,  friends,)  every  thing  short  of  eternity.  But  in 
disposing  the  eternal  states  of  men,  (allowing  only  what  was  observed 
under  the  first  article,)  it  is  clear,  that  not  sovereignty  alone,  but  jus- 
tice, mercy,  and  truth,  hold  the  reins  The  governor  of  heaven  and 
earth,  the  "  I  AM,"  over  all,  God,  blessed  for  ever,  takes  no  step 
jjere,  but  as  these  direct,  and  prepare  the  way  before  his  face.  This 
is  his  eternal  and  irresistible  will,  as  he  hath  revealed  unto  us  by  his 
Spirit :  declaring  in  the  strongest  terms,  adding  his  oath  to  his  word, 
and  because  he  could  swear  by  no  greater,  swearing  by  himself,  "  As 
I  live,  sahh  the  Lord  God,  I  have  no  pleasure  in  the  death  of  him 
that  dieth.  The  death  of  him  that  dieth  can  never  be  resolved  into 
my  pleasure  or  sovereign  will.  No !  it  is  impossible.  We  challenge 
all  mankind,  to  bring  one  clear,  scriptural  proof  to  the  contrary.  You 
^can  bring  no  Scripture  proof  that  God  ever  did,  or  assertion  that  he 
ever  will,  act  as  mere  Sovereign  in  eternally  condemning  any  soul  that 
ever  was,  ov  will  be  born  into  the  world. 

L12 


iUS  I'KEDESTINATION    t'ALMLVT    CONSIDEREIT. 

LVI.  Now,  you  are  probably  thinking  of  Esau  and  Pharaoh.  Do 
you  then  set  it  down  as  an  unquestionable  ti'uth,  that  these  were  cer- 
tainly condemned,  by  the  7nere  sovereign  will  of  God  ?  Are  you  sure, 
that  they  were  eternally  condemned  V  Even  that  point  is  not  altoi- 
gether  certain.  It  is  no  where  affirmed  in  Holy  Writ :  and  it  would 
cost  you  some  pains  to  prove  it.  it  is  true,  Pharaoh's  death  was  a 
punishment  from  God  ;  but  it  does  not  follow  that  he  was  punished 
everlastingly.  And  if  he  were,  it  was  not  by  the  mere  sovereign  icill 
of  God,  but  because  of  his  own  stubbornness  and  impenitence. 

Of  this  Moses  has  given  us  a  particular  account :  accordingly  we 
read,  "  When  Pharaoh  saw  that  there  Vi  as  respite,"  (after  he  was  de- 
livered from  the  plague  of  frogs)  "he  hardened  his  heart,  and  heark- 
ened not  unto  them."  (Exod.  viii.  13.)  So  after  the  plague  of  flies: 
"  Pharaoh  hardened  his  heart  at  thiis  time  also,  neither  would  he  let 
the  people  go.""  (ver.  32.)  Again,  "  When  Pharaoh  saw,  that  the 
rain  and  the  hail  were  ceased  he  sinned  yet  more,  and  hardened  his 
heart,  he  and  his  servants."  (Exod.  ix.  34.)  After  God  had  given 
him  all  this  space  to  repent,  and  had  expostulated  with  him  for  his\)b- 
slinate  impenitence  in  those  solemn  words :  "  How  long  wilt  thou 
refuse  to  humble  thyself  before  me  ?"  (chap.  x.  3.)  What  wonder  is 
it,  if  God  then  hardened  his  heart ;  that  is,  permitted  Satan  to  harden 
it  ?  if  he  at  length  wholly  withdrew  his  softening  grace,  and  "  gave 
him  up  to  a  reprobate  mind  ?" 

LVn.  The  case  of  Esau  is  widely  different  from  this:  although 
his  conduct  also  is  blameable  in  many  points. — The  first  was  his  sell- 
ing his  birth-right  to  Jacob.  (Gen.  xxv.  31,  &,c.)  The  next  his  mar- 
rying against  his  father's  consent,  (xxvi.  34,  35.)  But  it  is  highly 
probable  he  was  sensible  of  his  fault ;  because  Isaac  appears  to  have 
been  fully  reconciled  to  him,  when  he  said,  "My  son,  make  me  sa- 
voury meat,  that  my  soul  may  bless  tiiee  before  I  die."     Gen.  xxvii.  4. 

In  the  following  verses  we  have  an  account  of  the  manner  where- 
in he  was  supplanted  by  his  brother  Jacob.  Upon  Isaac's  relation  of 
this,  "  Esau  cried  with  a  great  and  exceeding  bitter  cry ;  (ver.  34.) 
and  said  unto  his  father,  bless  me,  even  me  also,  O  my  father !"  "  Buit 
he  found  no  place  (says  the  Apostle)  for  repentance,"  [for  recovering 
the  blessing,]  "  though  he  sought  it  carefully  with  tears."  "  Thy 
brother  (said  Isaac)  hath  taken  away  thy  blessing ;  I  have  blessed 
iiim,  yea,  and  he  shall  be  blessed."  So  that  all  Esau's  sorrow  and 
tears  could  not  recover  his  birth-right,  and  the  blessing  annexed 
thereto. 

And  yet  there  is  great  reason  to  hope,  that  Esau  (as  well  as  Jacob) 
is  now  in  Abraham's  bosom.  For  akhough  for  a  time  he  hated  Ja- 
cob, and  afterward  came  against  him  withfotir  hundred  men,  very  pro- 
bably designing  to  take  revenge  for  the  injuries  he  had  sustained : 
yet  we  find,  when  they  met,  "  Esau  ran  and  embraced  him,  and  fell 
on  his  neck  and  kissed  him."  So  thoroughly  had  God  changed  his 
heart.     And  why  should  we  doubt  but  that  happy  change  continued  ? 

LVIII.  You  can  ground  no  solid  objection  to  this,  on  St.  Paul's 
Avords,  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans :  "  It  was  said  unto  her.  The 
•'Ider  shall  serve  the  younger :  as  it  is  written,  Jacob  have  I  loved. 


^PREDESTINATION   CALMLV    CONSIDERED.  403 

!)Ut  Esau  have  I  hated."  chap.  ix.  12, 13.  For  it  is  undeniably  plain, 
(hat  both  these  scriptures  relate,  not  to  the  persons  of  Jacolxand  Esau, 
but  to  their  descendants ;  the  Israelites  sprung  from  Jacob,  and  the 
Edomites  sprung  from  Esau.  In  this  sense  only  did  the  elder  (Esau) 
serve  the  youngei ;  not  in  his  person  ;  (for  Esau  never  served  Jacob ;) 
but  in  his  posterity.  The  posterity  of  the  elder  brother  served  the 
posterity  of  the  younger. 

The  other  text  referred  to  by  tlie  Apostle,  runs  thus  :  "  I  loved 
Jacob,  and  I  hated  Esau,  and  laid  his  mountains  and  his  herhage 
waste  for  the  dragons  of  the  wilderness."  Mai.  i.  2.  Whose  heritage 
was  it  that  God  laid  waste  ?  Not  that  which  Esau  personally  enjoy- 
ed ;  but  that  of  his  posterity,  the  Edomites  ;  for  their  enormous  sins, 
largely  described  by  several  of  the  Prophets.  So  neither  here  is 
there  any  instance  of  any  man  being  finally  condemned,  by  the  mere 
sovereign  will  of  God. 

LIX.  The  unchangeableness  of  God  we  allow  likewise,  "In  him 
is  no  variableness,  neither  shadow  of  turning."  But  you  seem  to  lie 
under  a  mistake,  concerning  this  also,  for  want  of  observing  the 
Scripture  account  of  it.  The  Scripture  teaches,  1.  That  God  is  un- 
changeable, with  regard  to  his  decrees.  But  what  decrees  ?  The 
same  that  he  has  commanded  to  be  preached  to  every  creature.  "  He 
.  that  believeth  shall  be  saved ;  he  that  believeth  not,  shall  be  damned.** 
The  Scripture  teaches,  2.  That  God  is  unchangeable  with  regard 
to  his  love  and  hatred.  But  how  ?  Observe  this  well ;  for  it  is  your 
grand  mistake,  and  the  root  of  almost  all  the  rest.  God  unchange- 
ably loveth  righteousness,  and  hateth  iniquity.  Unchangeably  he 
loveth  faith,  and  unchangeably  hateth  unbelief  In  consequence 
thereof,  he  unchangeably  loves  the  righteous,  and  hateth  the  workei'S 
of  iniquity.  He  unchangeably  loves  them  that  believe,  and  hates 
wilful,  obsthiate  unbelievers.  So  that  the  Scripture  account  of  God's 
unchangeableness,  with  regard  to  his  decrees,  is  this :  he  has  un- 
changeably decreed  to  save  holy  believers,  and  to  condemn  obstinate, 
impenitent  unbelievers.  And,  according  to  Scripture,  his  unchange- 
ableness of  affection,  properly  and  primarily  regards  tempers  and  not 
persons:  and  persons  (as  Enoch,  Noah,  Abraham,)  only  as  those 
tempers  are  found  in  them.  Let  then  the  unchangeableness  of  God 
be  put  on  the  right  footing  ;  let  the  Scripture  be  allowed  to  fix  the  ob- 
jects of  it,  and  it  will  as  soon  prove  transubstantiation,  as  unconditional 
Election. 

LX.  The  faithfulness  of  God  nrmy  be  termed  a  branch  of  his  truth. 
He  wiW  perform  what  he  hath  promised.  But  then  let  us  inquire  of 
the  Oracles  of  God  to  whom  are  the  promises  made  ?  the  promises 
of  lite  and  immortality  ?  The  answer  is,  "  To  Abraham  and  his 
seed,"  that  is,  to  those  who  walk  in  the  steps  of  the  faith  of  their 
father  Abraham.  To  those  who  believe,  as  believers,  are  the  gospel- 
promises  made.  To  these  hath  the  faithful  God  engaged,  that  he  will 
do  what  he  hath  spoken.  "  He  will  fulfil  his  covenant  and  promise 
which  he  hath  made  to  a  thousand  generations  :"  the  sum  of  which  is* 
(as  we  find  it  expressly  declared  by  the  Spirit  of  God,)  "  The  Lord 


404  TKEDISSTINATION   CALMLY   CONSIDER  ED, 

•will  give  grace  (more  grace)  and  glory,  and  no  good  thing  will  he 
withhold  from  them  that  live  a  godly  life." 

LXI.  This  covenant  of  God  I  understand ;  but  I  have  heard  oi 
another  which  I  understand  not.  I  have  heard,  *'  That  God  the  Fa- 
ther made  a  covenant  with  his  Son,  before  the  world  began,  wherein 
the  Son  agreed  to  suffer  such  and  such  things,  and  the  Father  to  give 
him  such  and  such  souls  for  a  recompense ;  that,  in  consequence  of 
this,  those  souls  must  be  saved,  and  those  only,  so  that  all  others  must 
be  damned."  I  beseech  you,  where  is  this  written  ?  In  what  part 
of  Scripture  is  this  covenant  to  be  found  ?  We  may  well  expect  a 
thing  of  this  moment  to  be  revealed  very  expressly,  with  the  utmost 
clearness  and  solemnity  !  But  where  is  this  done  ?  And  if  it  is  not 
done,  if  there  is  no  such  account  in  all  the  Bible,  which  shall  wc 
wonder  at  most,  that  any  serious  man  should  advance,  or  that  thou- 
sands should  believe  so  strange  an  assertion,  w^ithout  one  plain  text  of 
Scripture  to  support  it,  from  Genesis  to  the  Revelation  ] 

LXII.  I  suppose  you  do  not  imagine  that  the  bare  word  covenant. 
if  it  occurred  ever  so  often  in  Holy  Writ,  is  a  proof  of  any  such 
covenant  as  this.  The  grand  covenant  which  we  allow  to  be  men- 
tioned therein,  is  a  covenant  between  God  and  man,  established  in 
the  hands  of  a  Mediator,  who  "  tasted  death  for  every  man,"  and 
thereby  purchased  it  for  all  the  children  of  men.  The  tenor  of  it  (so 
often  mentioned  already)  is  this  :  "  Whosoever  believeth  unto  the  end, 
so  as  to  show  his  faith  by  his  works,  I  the  Lord  will  reward  that  soul 
eternally :  but  whosoever  will  not  believe,  and,  consequently,  dieth 
in  his  sins,  I  will  punish  him  with  everlasting  destruction." 

LXIII.  To  examine  thoroughly  whether  this  covenant  between 
God  and  man  be  unconditional  or  conditional,  it  may  be  needful  to 
go  back  as  far  as  Abraham,  the  Father  of  the  faithful,  to  inquire  what 
manner  of  covenant  it  was  which  God  made  with  him  ;  and  whether 
any  reason  be  assigned  of  God's  peculiarly  blessing  Abraham,  anil 
all  the  nations  of  the  earth  in  him. 

The  lirst  mention  of  the  covenant  between  God  and  him,  occurs 
Gen.  XV.  18,  "  The  same  day,  the  Lord  made  a  covenant  with  Abra- 
ham, saying,  "  Unto  thy  seed  will  I  give  this  land."  But  this  is  much 
more  explicitly  related  in  the  17th  chapter,  ver.  1,  &c.  "  The  Lord 
appeared  unto  Abraham,  and  said  unto  him,  I  am  the  Almighty  God : 
walk  before  me,  and  be  thou  perfect.  And  I  will  make  my  covenant 
between  me  and  thee,  and  will  multiply  thee  exceedingly.  And  Abra- 
ham fell  on  his  face  ;  and  God  talked  whh  him,  saying.  As  for  me, 
]>ehold  my  covenant  is  with  thee,  and  thou  shalt  be  a  Father  of  many 
jiations.  Neither  shall  thy  name  any  more  be  called  Abram,  but  thy 
name  shall  be  Abraham  :  for  a  Father  of  many  nations  have  !  made 
thee.  And  I  will  establish  my  covenant  between  me  and  thee,  and 
ihy  seed  after  thee,  for  an  everlasting  covenant,  to  be  a  God  unto  thee, 
and  to  thy  seed  after  thee. — Every  man-child  among  you  shall  be  cir- 
cumcised,— it  shall  be  a  token  of  the  covenant  betwixt  me  and  you. — 
The  uncircumcised  man-child  shall  be  cut  off;  he  hath  broken  my 
covenant."  So  we  see,  this  original  covenant,  though  everlasting, 
n'as  conditional,  and  man's  failing  in  the  condhion,  cleared  God. 


Predestination  calmly  considered.  405 

LXIV.  We  have  St.  Paul's  account  of  this  covenantor  God  with 
Abraham,  in  Romans  iv.  3,  &c.  "  Abraham,"  saith  he,  "  beheved 
God,  and  it  was  counted  to  him  for  righteousness."  ( This  was  a  little 
before  God  established  his  covenant  with  him,  and  is  related.  Gen. 
xv.  6.)  "  And  he  received  the  sign  of  circumcision,  a  seal  of  the 
righteousness  of  the  faith  which  he  had,  yet  being  uncircumcised,  that 
he  might  be  the  Father  of  all  them  that  believe,  though  they  be  not 
circumcised,  that  righteousness  might  be  imputed  to  them  also  :  and 
the  Father  of  circumcision,  (i.  e.  of  them  that  are  cu-cumcised,)  to 
them  who  are  not  of  the  circumcision  only,  but  also  walk  in  the  steps 
of  that  faith  of  our  Father  Abraham,  which  he  had,  being  yet  uncir- 
cumcised." Now,  if  these  words  do  not  express  a  conditional  cove- 
nant, certainly  none  can. 

LXV.  The  nature  and  ground  of  this  covenant  of  God  with  Abra- 
ham is  farther  explained,  Gen  xviii.  19,  &c.  "  And  the  Lord  said, 
Shall  I  hide  from  Abraham  that  thing  which  I  do ;  seeing  all  the  na- 
tions of  the  earth  shall  be  blessed  in  him  ?  For  I  know  him,  that  he 
null  command  his  children,  and  his  household  after  him :  and  they 
shall  keep  tl^  way  of  the  Lord,  to  do  justice  and  judgment,  that  the 
Lord  may  bring  upon  Abraham  that  which  he  hath  spoken  of  him." 

Does  God  say  here,  Iicill  do  it,  because  I  will  ?  Nothing  less.  The 
reason  is  explicitly  assigned  :  "  All  nations  shall  be  blessed  in  him  : 
For  he  will  command  his  children,  and  they  shall  keep  the  way  of  the 
Lord." 

The  reason  is  yet  more  (clearly,  it  cannot,  but  more)  fully  set  down 
in  ch.  xxii.  16,  &c.  "  By  myself  have  I  sworn,  saith  the  Lord,  be- 
cause thou  hast  done  this  thing,  and  hast  not  withheld  thy  son, 
thine  only  son :  that  in  blessing  I  will  bless  thee, — and  in  thy  seed 
shall  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  be  blessed  ;"  (that  is,  the  Messiah 
shall  spring  from  thee)  because  thou  hast  obeyed  my  voice. 

This  is  yet  again  declared,  (chap.  xxvi.  2,  &c.)  "  And  the  Lord 
appeared  unto  Isaac,  and  said, — Sojourn  in  this  land,  and  I  will  be 
with  thee,  and  bless  thee :  for  unto  thee,  and  unto  thy  seed,  I  will 
perform  the  oath,  which  I  sware  unto  Abraham  thy  father.  In  thy 
seed  shall  all  nations  of  the  earth  be  blessed  :  because  that  Abra- 
ham obeyed  my  voice,  and  kept  my  charge,  my  commandments,  my 
statutes,  and  my  laws." 

LXVI.  This  covenant,  made  to  Abraham  and  his  seed,  is  mention- 
ed again,  Exod.  xix.  3,  &c.  "  And  the  Lord  called  unto  Moses, 
saying,  Thus  shalt  thou  say  to  the  house  of  Jacob,  and  tell  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel,  Ye  have  seen  what  I  did  to  the  Egyptians,  and  how  I 
bare  you  on  eagles'  wings,  and  brought  you  unto  myself  Now,  there- 
fore, if  ye  will  obey  my  voi('e  indeed,  and  keep  my  covenant,  then 
ye  shall  be  a  peculiar  treasure  unto  me,  above  all  people." 

In  the  following  chapter,  God  declares  the  terms  of  the  covenant 
they  were  to  keep,  in  ten  commandments.  And  these  themselves 
are  sometimes  termed.  The  Covenant :  sometimes.  The  Book  of  the 
Covenant.  So  chap.  xxiv.  4,  &c.  after  God  had  made  an  end  of  speak- 
ing to  the  people,  it  is  said,  "  And  Moses  wrote  all  the  words  of  the 
Lord,  and  rose  up  early  in  tlie  morning,— and  he  took  the  book  of 


406  PRBDESTINATION  CALMLY  CO^'SIDEIlEP. 

the  covenant,  and  read  in  the  audience  of  the  people ;  and  they  said, 
All  that  the  Lord  hath  said  will  we  do.  And  Moses  took  the  blood 
(of  the  burnt-offering)  and  sprinkled  it  on  the  people,  and  said.  Be- 
hold the  blood  of  the  covenant  which  the  Lord  hath  made  with  you 
concerning  all  these  words." 

After  the  people  had  broken  this  covenant,  by  worshipping  the 
golden  calf,  God  renews  it,  chap,  xxxiv.  where  we  read  (ver.  27, 
28,)  "And  the  Lord  said  unto  Moses,  Write  thou  these  words,  for 
after  the  tenor  of  these  words  I  have  made  a  covenant  with  thee 
and  with  Israel,  and  he  wrote  upon  the  tables,  the  words  of  the 
covenant,"  the  Ten  Commandments. 

LXVn.  According  to  the  tenor  of  this  covenant,  made  to  Abra- 
ham and  his  seed,  God  afterwards  declares  (Lev.  xxvi.  3,  &c.)  '-'  If 
ye  walk  in  my  statutes,  and  keep  my  commandments  and  do  ihem, 
then  I  will  establish  my  covenant  with  you,  and  I  will  be  your  God, 
and  ye  shall  be  my  people : — But  if  ye  will  not  hearken  unto  me,  so 
that  ye  will  not  do  all  my  commandments,  but  that  ye  break  my 
covenant,  I  will  set  my  face  against  you,  and  I  will  avenge  the  quar- 
rel of  my  covenant : — Yet  if  they  shall  confess  their  iniquity,  and  if 
their  uncircumcised  hearts  be  humbled, — then  will  I  remember  my 
covenant  with  Jacob,  and  also  my  covenant  with  Isaac,  and  also  my 
covenant  with  Abraham  will  I  remember."  Consequently,  the 
covenant  with  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  was  conditional,  as  well 
as  that  with  their  posterity. 

LXVIII.  "  But  is  not  the  Faithfulness  of  God  engaged  to  keep  all 
that  now  believe  from  falling  away  *?"  I  cannot  say  that.  What- 
ever assurance  God  may  give  to  particular  souls,  I  find  no  general 
promise  in  Holy  Writ,  "  That  none  who  once  believe  shall  finally 
fall."  Yet,  to  say  the  truth,  this  is  so  pleasing  an  opinion,  so  agree- 
able to  flesh  and  btood,  so  suitable  to  whatever  of  nature  remains  in 
those  who  have  tasted  the  grace  of  God,  that  I  see  nothing  but  the 
mighty  power  of  God,  which  can  restrain  any  one  who  hears  it  from 
closing  with  it.  But  still  it  wants  one  thing  to  recommend  it,  plain, 
cogent.  Scripture-proof. 

Arguments  from  experience  alone  will  never  determine  this  point. 
They  can  only  prove  thus  much,  on  the  one  hand,  that  our  Lord  is 
exceeding  patient,  that  he  is  peculiarly  unwilling  any  believer  should 
perish ;  that  he  bears  long,  very  long  with  all  their  follies,  waiting 
to  be  gracious,  and  to  heal  their  backsliding ;  and  that  he  does  ac- 
tually bring  back  many  lost  sheep,  who,  to  man's  apprehensions, 
were  irrecoverable  :  l)ut  all  this  does  not  amount  to  a  convincing 
proof,  that  no  believer  can  or  does  fall  from  grace.  So  that  this 
argument  from  experience  will  weigh  little  with  those  who  believe 
the  possibility  of  falling. 

And  it  will  weigh  full  as  little  with  those  who  do  not.  For  if 
you  produce  ever  so  many  examples  of  those  who  were  once  strong 
in  faith,  and  are  now  more  abandoned  than  ever,  they  will  evade  it 
by  saying,  "  O,  but  they  will  be  brought  back  ;  they  will  not  die  in 
fheir  sins."    And  if  they  do  die  in  their  sins,  we  come  no  nearer; 


PREDJISTINATION  CALMLY  CONSIDERED.  107 

we  have  not  gained  one  point  still.  For  it  is  easy  to  say,  « They 
were  only  hypocrites :  they  never  had  true  faith.'  "  Therefore 
Scripture  alone  can  determine  this  question.  And  Scripture  does 
so  fully  determine  it,  that  there  needs  only  to  set  down  a  very  few 
texts,  with  some  short  reflections  upon  them. 

LXIX.  That  one  who  is  a  true  beUever,  or,  in  other  words,  one 
who  is  holy  or  righteous  in  the  judgment  of  God  himself,  may  never- 
theless finally  fall  from  grace,  appears,  1.  From  the  Avord  of  God 
by  Ezekiel,  (ch.  xviii.  24.)  "When  the  righteous  turneth  away 
from  his  righteousness,  and  committeth  iniquity  in  his  trespass  that 
he  hath  trespassed,  and  in  his  sin  that  he  hath  sinned,  in  them  shall 
he  die." 

Do  you  object,*  "  This  chapter  relates  wholly  and  solely  to  the 
Jewish  church  and  nation  ?'  I  answer.  Prove  this  :  till  then  I  shall 
believe  that  many  parts  of  it  concern  all  mankind. 

If  you  say,  2.  "  The  righteousness  spoken  of  in  this  chapter,  was 
merely  an  outward  righteousness,  without  any  inward  principle  oi 
grace  or  holiness:  1  ask.  How  is  this  consistent  with  the  31st  verse, 
"Cast  away  from  you  all  your  transgressions  whereby  ye  have  trans- 
gressed, and  make  you  a  new  heart,  and  a  new  spirit  ?"  Is  this  a 
« merely  outward  righteousness,  without  any  inward  principle  ot 
grace  or  holiness  ?" 

Will  you  add,  "  But  admitting  the  person  here  spoken  of  to  be  a 
truly  righteous  man,  what  is  here  said  is  only  a  supposition."  That 
I  flatly  deny.  Read  over  the  chapter  again,  and  you  will  see  the 
facts  there  laid  down,  to  be  not  barely  supposed,  but  expressly  as- 
serted. 

That  the  death  here  mentioned  is  eternal  death,  appears  from  the 
26th  verse.  "  When  a  righteous  man  turneth  away  from  his  right- 
eousness, and  committeth  iniquity,  and  dieth  in  them,  (here  is  tem- 
poral death,)  for  his  iniquity  that  he  hath  done,  he  shall  die."  Here 
is  death  eternal. 

If  you  assert,  "  Both  these  expressions  signify  the  same  thing,  and 
not  two  different  deaths  :"  you  put  a  palpable  force  upon  the  text, 
'11  order  to  make  the  Holy  Ghost  speak  nonsense.  "Dying  in /h6( 
iniquity  (you  say)  is  the  same  thing  as  dying /or  his  iniquity. ^^  Then 
the  text  means  thus,  "  When  he  dieth  in  them,  he  shall  die  in  them." 
A  very  deep  discovery  ! 

But  you  say,  "  It  cannot  be  understood  of  eternal  death  :  because 
they  might  be  delivered  from  it  by  repentance  and  reformation.'' 
And  why  might  they  not  by  such  repentance  as  is  mentioned  in  the 
31st  verse,  be  delivered  from  eternal  death  1 

But  the  whole  chapter,  you  think  "  has  nothing  to  do  with  the 
spiritual  and  eternal  affairs  of  men." 

I  believe  every  impartial  man  will  think  quite  the  contrary,  if  he 
reads  calmly  either  the  beginning  of  it :  "  All  souls  are  mine,  saitli 

'"  See  a  Pamphlet  entitled,  The  Doctrine  of  the  Saints' Final  PeraeTeranee,  Asserted 
and  Vindicated. 


408  PREDESTEVATIOX  CAL51LY  CONSinERED. 

the  Lord  God :  the  soul  that  sinneth  it  shall  die  ;  (where  I  can  hy  no 
means  allow  that  by  the  death  of  the  soul  is  meant  only  a  temporal 
affliction  :)  or  the  conclusion,  "  Repent  and  turn  yourselves  from  all 
your  transgressions ;  so  iniquity  shall  not  be  your  ruin.  Cast  away 
from  you  all  your  transgressions,  whereby  ye  have  transgressed,  and 
make  you  a  new  heart,  and  a  new  spirit,  for  why  will  ye  die,  O 
house  of  Israel  ?"  It  remains  then,  that  one  who  is  righteous  in  the 
judgment  of  God  himself,  may  finally  fall  from  grace. 

LXX.  Secondly,  That  one  who  is  endued  with  the  faith,  which 
produces  a  good  conscience,  may,  nevertheless,  finally  fall,  appears 
from  the  words  of  St.  Paul  to  Timothy,  (I  Tim.  i.  18,  19.)  "  War  a 
good  warfare,  holding  faith  and  a  good  conscience,  which  some 
having  put  away,  concerning  faith  have  made  shipwreck." 

Observe,  1.  These  men  had  once  the  faith  that  produces  a  good 
conscience,  which  they  once  had,  or  they  could  not  have  put  it  away. 

Observe,  2.  They  made  shipwreck  of  the  faith,  which  necessarily 
implies  the  total  and  final  loss  of  it. 

You  object,  "  Nay,  the  putting  away  a  good  conscience  does  not 
suppose  they  had  it,  but  rather  that  they  had  it  not." 

This  is  really  surprising.  But  how  do  you  prove  it  ?  "  Why  by 
Acts  xiii.  46,  where  St.  Paul  says  to  the  Jews,  <  It  was  necessary 
that  the  word  of  God  should  first  have  been  spoken  to  you.  But 
seeing  ye  put  it  from  you — lo,  we  turn  to  the  Gentiles.'  Here  you 
.see  the  Jews,  who  never  had  the  gospel,  are  said  to  put  it  aicay." 

How  !  are  you  sure  they  "  never  had,  what  they  are  here  said  to 
put  away  .<"'  Not  so ;  what  they  put  away,  it  is  undeniable  they  had 
till  they  put  it  aioay  :  namely,  the  word  of  God  spoken  by  Paul  and 
Barnabas.  This  instance,  therefore,  makes  full  against  you.  It 
proves  just  the  reverse  of  what  you  cited  it  for. 

But  you  object  further,  "  Men  may  have  &  good  conscience  in  some 
sense,  without  true  faith." 

I  grant  it,  in  a  restrained,  limited  sense  ;  but  not  a  good  conscience, 
simply  and  absolutely  spealdng.  But  such  is  that  of  which  the 
Apostle  here  speaks,  and  which  he  exhorts  Timothy  to  holdfast.  Un- 
less you  apprehend,  that  the  holding  it  fast  likewise  "  rather  sup- 
poses  he  never  had  it." 

"  But  the  faith  here  mentioned  means  only  the  doctrine  of  faith." 
I  want  better  proof  of  this. 

It  remains  then,  that  one  who  has  the  faith  that  produces  a  good 
conscience,  may  yet  finally  fall. 

LXXI.  Thirdly,  Those  who  are  grafted  into  the  good  olive-tree, 
the  spiritual,  invisible  church,  may  nevertheless  finally  fall.  For 
thus  saith  the  Apostle,  "  Some  of  the  branches  are  broken  oft',  and 
thou  art  grafted  in  among  them,  and  with  them  partakest  of  the  root 
and  fatness  of  the  olive-tree.  Be  not  high-minded,  bat  fear  :  if  God 
spared  not  the  natural  branches,  take  heed  lest  he  spare  not  thee; 
Behold  the  goodness  and  severity  of  God  !  on  them  which  fell,  se- 
verity, but  toward  thee,  goodness,  if  thou  continue  in  his  goodness ; 
otherwise  thou  shalt  be  cut  off,"  Rom.  xi.  1 7^  &.c. 


piREDESTIXATION  CAL3ILV  CONSIDERED.  40S 

"VVe  may  observe  here,  1.  The  persons  spoken  to  were  actually 
engrafted  into  the  olive-tree  : 

2.  This  olive-tree  is  not  barely  the  outward,  visible  church,  but 
the  invisible,  consisting  of  holy  believers.  So  the  text.  "  If  the 
iirst-fruit  be  holy,  the  lump  is  holy ;  and  if  the  root  be  holy,  so  aie 
the  branches."  And,  "  because  of  unbelief  they  were  broken  ofl', 
and  thou  standest  by  faith." 

3.  Those  holy  believers  were  still  liable  to  be  cut  off  from  the 
invisible  church,  into  which  they  were  then  grafted. 

4.  Here  is  not  the  least  intimation  of  their  being  ever  grafted  in 
again. 

To  this  you  object,  1.  "  This  olive-tree  is  not  the  invisible  church, 
but  only  the  outward  gospel  church  state."  You  affirm  this  ;  and  1 
prove  the  contrary;  namely,  that  it  is  the  invisible  church:  for  it 
''consists  of  holy  believers,  which  none  but  the  invisible  church  does." 

You  object,  2.  "  The  Jews  who  were  broken  oil',  were  never  true 
believers  in  Christ." 

I  am  not  speaking  of  the  Jews,  but  of  those  Gentiles  who  art 
mentioned  in  the  22d  verse  ;  whom  St.  Paul  exhorts  to  "  continue 
in  his  goodness :"  otherwise,  saith  he,  "  thou  shalt  be  cut  off." 
Now,  I  presume,  these  were  true  believers  in  Christ.  Yet  they  were 
still  liable  to  be  cut  off. 

You  assert,  3.  "  This  is  only  a  cutting-ofF  from  the  outward  church- 
state."  But  how  is  this  proved  ?  So  forced  and  unnatural  a  conv 
struction  requires  some  argument  to  support  it. 

You  say,  4.  "There  is  a  strong  intimation  that  they  shall  be  grafted 
ui  again."  No.  Not  that  those  Gentiles,  who  "did  not  continue 
in  his  goodness,"  should  be  grafted  in,  after  they  were  once  cut  off! 
I  cannot  find  the  least  intimation  of  this.  "  But  all  Israel  shall  he. 
.sarcrf."  I  believe  they  will :  but  this  docs  not  imply  the  re-ingraft- 
ing of  these  Gentiles. — It  remains  then,  that  those  who  are  grafted 
into  the  spiritual,  invisible  church,  may  nevertheless  finally  fall. 

LXXII.  Fourthly,  Those  who  are  branches  of  Christ,  the  true 
vine,  may  yet  finally  fall  from  grace.  For  thus  saith  our  blessed 
Lord  himself,  "  I  am  the  true  Vine,  and  my  Father  is  the  husband- 
man. Every  branch  in  me  that  beareth  not  fruit,  he  taketh  away. 
I  am  the  vine,  ye  are  the  branches.  If  a  man  abide  not  in  me,  he 
is  cast  forth  as  a  branch,  and  is  withered,  and  men  gather  them,  and 
cast  them  into  the  fire,  and  they  are  burned."  John  xv.  1,  &c. 

Here  we  may  observe,  1.  The  persons  spoken  of,  were  in  Chrhl, 
branches  of  the  true  vine  : 

2.  Some  of  these  branches  abide  not  in  Christ,  but  "the  Father 
taketh  them  away :" 

3.  The  branches  which  abide  not  are  cast  forth,  cast  out  from  Chiisi 
and  his  church. 

4.  They  are  not  only  cast  forth,  but  loithered,  consequently  never 
grafted  in  again. 

5.  They  are  not  only  cast  forth,  and  ivithered,  but  also  cast  into  thf 
Hre :  And, 

Vol.  9.— M  m 


1 10  ^EEDESTI^'ATION  CALMLY  CO^SIDEEEjD. 

6.  Tkeij  are  burned.  It  is  not  possible  for  words  more  strongly 
to  declare,  that  those  who  are  branches  of  the  true  A'ine  may  finalb, 
fall. 

"  But  this,  you  say,  furnishes  an  argument  for,  not  against,  the 
persevering  of  the  saints." 

Yes,  just  such  an  argument  for  final  perseverance,  'as  the  above- 
cited  words  of  St.  Paul  to  Timothy. 

But  how  do  you  make  it  out  1  Why  thus.  "  There  are  two  sorts- 
^of  branches  in  Christ  the  vine  :  the  one  fruitful,  the  other  unfruit- 
ful. The  one  are  eternally  chosen,  and  these  abide  in  him,  and 
can  never  withdraw  away."  Nay,  this  is  the  very  point  to  be 
proved.  So  that  you  now,  immediately  and  directly,  beg  the  ques- 
tion. 

"  The  other  sort  of  branches  are  such  as  are  in  Christ  only  by 
profession :  who  get  into  churches,  and  so  are  reckoned  in  Christ, 
and  these  in  time  wither  away.  These  never  had  any  life,  grace,  or 
fruitfulness  from  him." 

Surely  you  do  not  offer  this  by  way  of  argument !  You  are  again 
taking  for  granted  the  very  point  to  be  proved. 

But  you  will  prove,  that  "  those  are  branches  in  Christ,  who  never 
had  any  life  or  grace  from  him,  because  the  churches  of  Judea  and 
Thessalonica  are  said  to  be  in  Christ,  though  every  individual  mem- 
ber was  not  savingly  in  him."  I  deny  the  consequence,  which  can 
never  be  made  good,  unless  you  can  prove,  that  those  very  Jews  or 
Thessalonians,  who  never  had  any  life  or  grace  from  him,  are  never- 
theless said  by  our  Lord  to  be  branches  in  him. 

It  remains,  that  true  believers,  vvho  are  branches  of  the  true  vine, 
may  nevertheless  finally  fall. 

LXXIII.  Fifthly,  Those  who  so  effectually  know  Christ,  as  b} 
that  knowledge  to  have  escaped  the  pollutions  of  the  world,  may  yet 
fall  back  into  those  pollutions,  and  perish  everlastingly.  For  thus 
saith  the  Apostle  Peter,  "  If  after  they  have  escaped  the  pollutions 
of  the  world,  through  the  knowledge  of  the  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ,"  (the  only  possible  way  of  escaping  them,)  "they  are  en- 
tangled again  therein  and  overcome,  the  latter  end  is  worse  with 
them  than  the  beginning."  2  Pet.  ii.  20,  2L 

But  you  say,  I.  "Their  knowledge  was  not  an  experimental 
knowledge."  And  how  do  you  prove  this?  "Because,  had  it 
been  such,  they  could  not  have  lost  it."  You  are  begging  the  ques- 
tion again. 

You  say,  2.  "  Escaping  the  pollutions  of  the  world,  signifies  no  more 
than  an  outward  reformation."  How  prove  you  that  1  You  aim  at 
no  proof  at  all.     But  he  that  will  grant  it,  may. 

You  say,  3.  "  These  persons  never  had  any  change  wrought  upon 
them.  They  were  no  other  than  dogs  and  swine,  not  only  before 
and  after,  but  even  while  they  outwardly  abstained  from  gross  enor- 
mities." 

I  grant,  that  before  and  after  that  time,  during  which  they  "  es- 
caped the  pollutions  of  the  world,"  (or  as  St.  Peter  words  it  in  his 


PREDESTIKATION  CALMLY  CONSIDERED.  411 

i^ormcf  Epistle,  "The  corruption  that  is  in  the  world,")  they  might 
well  be  termed  either  dogs  or  swine,  for  their  gross  enormities.  But 
that  they  deserved  such  an  appellation  during  that  time,  I  cannot 
^rant  whhout  some  proof. 

It  remains,  that  those  who,  by  the  inward  knowledge  of  Christj 
have  escaped  the  pollutions  of  the  world,  may  yet  fall  back  into 
those  pollutions,  and  perish  everlastingly. 

LXXIV.  Sixthly,  Those  who  see  the  hght  of  the  glory  of  God  in 
the  face  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  who  have  been  made  partakers  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  of  the  witness,  and  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit,  may  never- 
theless so  fall  from  God,  as  to  perish  everlastingly. 

For  thus  saith  the  writer  to  the  Hebrews, — "  It  is  impossible  for 
those  who  were  once  enlightened,  and  have  tasted  of  the  heavenlj 
gift,  and  were  made  partakers  of  the  Holy  Ghost, — If  they  fall 
away,  to  renew  them  again  to  repentance  ;  seeing  they  crucify 
to  themselves  the  Son  of  God  afresh,  and  put  him  to  an  open 
shame." 

Must  not  every  unprejudiced  person  see,  the  expressions  here 
used  are  so  strong  and  clear,  that  they  cannot,  without  gross  and 
palpable  wresting,  be  understood  of  any  but  true  believers  1 

But  the  Apostle  makes  only  a  supposition,  "  If  they  shall  fall 
moay .?" 

The  Apostle  makes  no  supposition  at  all.     There  is  no.  if  in  the 

original.       The  V^ords  are,  A^warov  yct^   rm  cCTrat,^  (pajria-S-streti — Kctt  TTetpct- 

■reTo^iTxi;.  That  is,  in  plain  English,  "  It  is  impossible  to  renew  again 
unto  repentance  those  who  were  once  enlightened,  and  have  fallen 
away." 

"  No.  The  words  in  the  original  lie  literally  thus.  It  is  impossible 
for  those  who  were  once  enlightened, — and  they  falling  away,  to  renew 
them  again  unto  repentance  :  that  is,  should  they  fall  away,  which  is, 
in  plain  English,  If  they  fall  away." 

Excuse  me  for  speaking  plain  English  here.  "  Shall  a  man  lie 
for  God  1"  Either  you  or  I  do  ;  for  I  flatly  aver,  (and  let  all,  that 
understand  Greek,  judge  between  us,)  that  the  words  in  the  original 
do  not  lie  literally  thus,  And  they  falling  away,  (if  so,  they  must  be 
KXi  7r<«flj6jr<;r7ov/«;,  in  the  present  tense  ;  not  Koct  z-xpxTreToiloa,  in  the  in- 
definite,) but  that  they  are  translated,  And  have  fallen  away  ;  as  lite- 
rally as  the  English  tongue  will  bear. 

Therefore  here  is  no  if  in  the  case,  no  supposition  at  all,  but  a 
plain  declaration  of  matter  of  fact. 

LXXV.  "  But  why  do  you  imagine  these  persons  were  true  be- 
lievers 1"  Because  all  the  expressions,  in  their  easy,  natural  sense, 
imply  it. 

They  icere  once  enlightened  :  an  expression  familiar  with  the  Apos- 
tle, and  never  by  him  applied  to  any  but  believers.  So  "  the  God 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  give  unto  you  the  Spirit  of  wisdom  and 
revelation, — The  eyes  of  your  understanding  being  enlightened,  that 
ye  may  know  what  is  the  hope  of  his  calling, — And  what  is  the  ex- 
ceeding greatness  of  his  power,  to  us-Avard  that  believe."  Eph.  i.  17, 


il 2  1'BEDESTINATI0^'  CALMLY  C'O:?vSIDERE0.-, 

&c.  So  again,  "  God,  who  commanded  the  hght  to  shme  out  o'" 
darkness,  liath  shined  in  our  heai'ts,  to  give  the  light  of  the  know- 
ledge of  the  glory  of  God  in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ."  2  Cor.  iv.  6 

"  Nay,  fAey  were  enlightened,  means  only,  they  were  baptized;  or 
knew  the  doctrines  of  the  gospel." 

I  cannot  believe  this,  till  you  bring  me  a  few  passages  from  St- 
Paul's  writings,  wherein  that  expression  is  evidently  taken  in  either 
of  these  senses. 

Again.  They  -'had  tasted  of  the  heavenly  gift"  { emphatically  so 
called)  "  and  were  made  partakers  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  So  St 
Peter  likewise  couples  them  together.  Acts  ii.  38,  "  Be  baptized  for 
the  remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.'' 
Whereby  the  love  of  God  was  shed  abroad  in  their  hearts,  with  all 
the  other  fruits  of  the  Spirit. 

The  expression,  they  "had  tasted  of  the  heavenly  gift,"  is  taken 
from  the  Psalmist,  "  Taste  and  see  that  the  Lord  is  good."  As  if  he 
had  said.  Be  ye  as  assured  of  his  love,  as  of  any  thing  you  see  with 
your  eyes.  And  let  the  assurance  thereof  be  sweet  to  your  soul,  as 
the  honey  is  to  your  tongue. 

"  But  this  means  only,  they  had  some  notions  of  remission  of  sins 
mid  heaven,  and  some  desires  after  them.  And  they  had  received 
the  extraordinary  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  This  you  affirm ;  bu< 
without  any  colour  of  proof. 

It  remains,  that  those  who  "  see  the  light  of  the  glory  of  God,  in 
the  face  of  Jesus  Christ,"  and  who  have  been  made  partakers  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  of  the  witness  and  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit,  may  never- 
theless so  fall  from  God  as  to  perish  everlastingly. 

LXXVI,  Seventhly,  Those  who  live  by  faith  may  yet  fall  from 
God,  and  perish  everlastingly. 

For  thus  saith  the  Apostle,  "The  just  shall  live  by  faith  ;  but  il 
any  man  draw  back,  my  soul  shall  have  no  pleasure  in  him."  Heb. 
X.  38.  The  just,  (the  justified  person,  of  whom  only  this  can  be 
said)  shall  live  by  faith,  even  now  shall  live  the  life  which  is  hid  with 
Christ  in  God  ;  and  if  he  endure  unto  the  end,  shall  live  with  God 
for  ever.  "  But  if  any  man  draw  back,  saith  the  Lord,  my  soul 
shall  have  no  pleasure  in  him  ;"  that  is,  I  will  utterly  cast  him  of!, 
and  accordingly  the  drawing  back  here  spoken  of,  is  termed  in  t\v' 
verse  immediately  following,  "  drawing  back  to  perdition." 

"  But  the  person  supposed  to  draw  back,  is  not  the  same  with  him 
that  is  said  to  live  by  faith." 

I  answer,  I.  Who  is  it  then  1  Can  any  man  draw  back  from 
faith,  who  never  came  to  it  ?  2.  But  had  the  text  been  fairly  trans- 
lated,  there  had  been  no   pretence  for  this  objection.     For  the 

original  runs   thus: '  O  ^(xat(^  ex.  -sri'^em  ^i,T£Tur  y.ett  £«v   vsroTU\rJoci — 

If  'o  hy.{it(^,  the  just  man  that  lives  by  faith  (so  the  expression  neces- 
sarily implies,  there  being  no  other  nominative  to  the  verb)  drawn 
back,  my  soxd  shall  have  no  pleasure  in  him. 

"  But  your  translation  too  is  inaccurate."  Be  pleased  to  sho^v 
me  wherein  ? 


PREDESTINATION  CALMLY  CONSIDERED.  413 

"I  grant  he  may  draw  back  ;  and  yet  not  draw  back  to  perdi- 
tion."    But  then  it  is  not  the  drawing  back  which  is  here  spoken  of. 

"  However,  here  is  only  a  supposition,  which  proves  no  fact."  I 
observe  you  take  that  as  a  general  rule,  Suppositions  prove  no  facts. 
But  this  is  not  true.  They  do  not  always  ;  but  many  times  they  do. 
And  whether  they  do  or  not  in  a  particular  text,  must  be  judged 
from  the  nature  of  the  supposition,  and  from  the  preceding  and  fol- 
lowing words. 

"  But  the  inserting  any  man  into  the  text,  is  agreeable  to  the  gram- 
matical construction  of  the  words."  This  I  totally  deny.  There  is 
no  need  of  any  such  insertion.     The  preceding  nominative  suffices, 

"  But  one  that  lives  by  faith,  cannot  draw  back.  For  ivJiom  he 
justified,  them  he  also  glorified." 

This  proves  no  more  than  that  all  who  are  glorified,  are  pardoned  ■■ 
and  sanctified  first. 

"  Nay,  but  St.  Paul  says,  '  Ye  are  dead  ;  and  your  life  is  hid  with 
Christ  in  God.  When  Christ,  who  is  your  life,  shall  appear,  then, 
shall  ye  also  appear  with  him  in  glory.' " 

Most  sure,  if  you  endure  to  the  end.  "  Whosoever  believeth  in 
him"  to  the  end  "  shall  never  die." 

LXXVII.  "  But,  to  come  more  home  to  the  point,  I  say,  this  text 
is  so  far  from  militating  against  perseverance,  that  it  greatly  esta- 
blishes it." 

You  are  very  unhappy  in  your  choice  of  texts  to  establish  this 
doctrine.  Two  of  these  establish  it  just  as  this  does,  as  we  have 
seen  already.  Now  pray  let  us  hear  how  you  prove  perseverance 
from  this  text. 

"  Very  easily.  Here  are  two  sorts  of  persons  mentioned  ;  he  that 
lives  by  faith,  and  he  that  draws  back  to  perdition." 

Nay,  this  is  the  very  question.  I  do  not  allow  that  two  persons 
are  mentioned  in  the  text.  I  have  shown  it  is  one  and  the  same- 
person,  who  once  lived  by  faith,  and  after^vards  draws  back. 

let  thus  much  I  allow:  tv/o  sorts-of  believers  are  in  the  next 
verse  mentioned ;  some  that  draw  back,  and  some  that  persevere. 
And  I  allow,  the  Apostle  adds,  "  We  are  not  of  them  that  draw 
back  unto  perdition."  But  what  will  you  infer  from  thence  1  This 
is  so  far  from  contradicting  w^hat  has  been  observed  before,  that  it 
manifestly  confirms  it,  it  is  a  farther  proof  that  there  are  those  who 
drawback  unto  perdition,  although  these  were  not  of  that  number. 

"I  must  still  aver,  that  the  text  is  rightly  translated:  which  I  prove 
thus : — 

"The  original  text  (Hab.  ii.  4.)  runs  thus:  'Behold  his  soul 
who  is  lifted  up,  is  not  upright  in  him  ;  but  the  just  shall  live  by  his 
faith.'" 

" This  the  Seventy  render,  Exv  vzra?ei>.yjxi,  ax  ev^oy.em-^vxv  f^i")  av%' 
6  Se  hxxi(^  iK.  zriTieoi  ua  Ci'erai^  If  a  man  draw  back,  my  soul  hath  no 
j)leasure  in  him.     But  the  just  shall  live  by  my  faith,  (i.  e.  faith  in  me.) 

"  Now  here  the  man  in  the  former  clause  who  draws  back,  is  dis- 
tinguished from  him  in  the  following  clause,  who  lives  by  faith. 

M  m  2 


•114  pnEDr:STi:7ATio\  calmlv  cox'siuerep- 

"  But  the  Apostle  quotes  the  test  from  this  translation." 
True  ;  but  he  does  not  distinguish  the  man  in  the  former  clausr- 
who  draws  back,  irom  him  in  the  latter  Avho  lives  by  faith.  So  far 
from  it,  that  he  quite  inverts  the  order  of  the  sentence,  placing  the 
latter  clause  ol  it  first.  And  by  this  mean  it  comes  to  pass,  that 
although  in  translating  this  text  irom  the  Scptuagint,  we  must  insert 
a  man  (because  there  is  i\o  nominative  pieceding)  yet  in  translating  it 
from  (he  Apostle,  there  is  no  need  or  pretence  for  inserting  it,  seeing 
fl  ^ty.ui(^  stands  just  before. 

Therefore  such  sn  insertion  is  a  palpable  violence  to  tlie  test : 
\which  consequently  is  not  rightly  translated. 

It  remains,  that  those  who  live  by  faith,  may  yet  fall  from  God. 
cuid  perish  everlastingly. 

LXXVIII.  Eighthly,  Those  who  are  sanctified  by  the  blood  oi 
the  covenant,  may  so  fall  as  to  perish  everlastingly. 

For  thus  again  saith  the  Apostle  :  "  If  we  sin  wilfully,  after  wc 
have  received  the  knowledge  of  the  truth,  there  remaineth  no  more- 
sacrifice  for  sin  ;  but  a  certain  fearful  looking  for  of  judgment  and 
fiery  indignation,  which  shall  devour  the  adversaries.  He  that  de- 
spised Moses's  law  died  without  mercy  under  two  or  three  witnesses ; 
of  how  much  sorer  punishment  shall  he  be  thought  worthy,  who 
fmth  trodden  under  foot  the  Son  of  God,  and  hath  counted  the  blood- 
of  the  covenant,  wherewith  he  was  sancti'fied,  an  unholy  thing." 

It  is  undeniably  plain,  1 .  That  the  person  mentioned  here  was 
once  sanctified  by  the  blood  of  the  covenant :  2.  That  he  after- 
wards, by  known  wilful  sin,  trod  under  foot  the  Son  of  God  :  and. 
3.  That  he  hereby  incurred  a  sorer  punishment  than  death,  namely, 
death  everlasting. 

"  Nay,  the  immediate  antecedent  to  the  relative  he,  is  tlie  Son  o'' 
Grod.  Therefore  it  was  he,  not  the  apostate  who  was  sanctified  (set 
apart  for  his  priestly  ofhce)  by  the  blood  of  the  covenant." 

Either  yon  forget  to  look  at  the  original,  or  your  memory  fails. 
The  Son  of  God,  is  not  tlie  Immediate  antecedent  to  the  relative  he. 
The  words  run  thus  :  "  Of  how  much  sorer  punishment  shall  he  b< 
thought  worthy,  Avho  hatii  trodden  under  foot  the   Son  of  God. 

:£««  Ta  otty-d  7y,i  ^iciS-tjuy,!;  y-oivev  jjy;;5-rt,M,ev©-',  sv  <y  y,'yioi.7.'^ij-      lOU  SCC  y,'yi:Va.fA,a®-. 

not  vt(^y  is  the  immediate  antecedent  to  the  relative  he.     Conse- 
•jfQently  it  is  the  apostate,  not  the  son  of  God,  who  is  here  said  to  be 
sanctified. 

■^^  if  lie  were  sanctified,  yet  this  cannot  be  understood  of  inward 
sanctification.  Therefore  it  must  mean,  either,  that  he  said  he  was 
sanctified  ;  or  that  he  made  an  outward  profession  of  religion." 

Why  cannot  the  word  be  miderstood  in  its  proper,  natural  sense. 
of  inward  sanctification  ? 

"  Because  that  is  by  the  Spirit  of  God."  From  this  very  con- 
sideration it  appears,  that  this  must  be  understood  of  inward  sancti- 
/ication  ;  fo;' the  words  immediately  Ibllowing  are,  "  and  hath  done 
ftespite  unto  thv;  Spirit  of  grace,"  even  that  grace  whereby  he  u-at 
once  sandifkd,. 


tREDESTINATION*  CALMLY  CONSIDERED-  4l5v 

It  remains,  that  those  who  are  sanctified  by  the  blood  of  the  cove- 
nant, may  yet  perish  everlastingly. 

LXXIX.  If  you  imagine  these  texts  are  not  sufficient  to  prove 
that  a  true  believer  may  finally  fall,  I  will  offer  a  few  more  to  your 
consideration,  which  I  would  beg  you  to  weigh  farther  at  your 
leisure. 

Matt.  V,  13,  "Ye  (Christians)  are  the  salt  of  the  earth.  But  it 
the  salt  have  lost  its  savour,  wherewith  shall  it  be  salted  1  It  is  hence- 
forth good  for  nothing  but  to  be  cast  out,  and  trodden  under  foot 
of  men."     * 

Chap.  xii.  43,  "  When  the  unclean  spirit  goeth  out  of  a  man, 
(as  he  doth  out  of  every  true  believer,)  he  walketh  through  dry 
places,  seeking  rest,  and  findeth  none.  Then  he  saith,  I  will  re- 
turn,— and  he  taketh  with  him  seven  other  spirits^, — and  they  enter 
in,  and  dwell  there.  And  the  last  state  of  that  man  is  worse  than 
the  first." 

Chap.  xxiv.  10,  &c.  "  And  then  shall  many  be  offended, — and  the 
love  (towards  God  and  man)  of  many  shall  wax  cold.  But  he  that 
shall  endure  to  the  end,  the  same  shall  be  saved." 

Ver.  45,  &c.  "  Who,  then,  is  a  faithful  and  wise  servant,  whom  his 
Lord  hath  made  ruler  over  his  household  'I — But  if  that  evil  servant 
(wise  and  faithful  as  he  was  once)  shall  begin  to  smite  his  fellow- 
servants, — the  Lord  shall  cut  him  asunder,  and  appoint  him  his  por- 
tion with  the  hypocrites,"  apostates  being  no  better  than  they. 

JiUke  xxi.  34,  "  Take  heed  to  yourselves  (ye  that  believe)  lest  at 
any  time  your  heart  be  overcharged  with  the  cares  of  this  life,  and. 
so  that  day  come  upon  you  unawares."  Plainly  implying,  that 
otherwise  they  would  not  be  "  accounted  worthy  to  stand  before  the 
Son  of  Man." 

John  v.  14,  "Sin  no  more,  lest  a  worst  thing  (than  any  temporal 
evil)  come  unto  thee." 

Chap.  viii.  31.  33,  "  If  ye  continue  in  my  Word,  then  are  ye  my 
disciples  indeed.  And  ye  shall  know  the  truth,  and  the  truth  shall 
make  you  free," 

1  Cor.  ix.  27,  "  I  keep  my  body  under, — lest,  by  any  means, 
when  I  have  preached  to  others,  I  myself  should  be  a  cast-away." 

1  Cor.  x.  3,  &c.  "Our  fathers  did  all  eat  the  same  spiritual  meat, 
and  did  all  drink  the  same  spiritual  drink  (for  they  drank  of  that  . 
spiritual  Rock  that  followed  them,  and  that  Rock  was  Christ.)  But 
with  many  of  them  God  was  not  well  pleased  ;  for  they  were  over- 
thrown in  the  wilderness. — Now  these  things  were  our  examples, — 
Wherefore  let  him  that  thinketh  he  standeth,  take  heed  lest  he  fall.'" 

2  Cor.  vi.  1,  "We,  therefore,  as  workers  together  with  him,  be- 
.scech  you,  that  ye  receive  not  the  grace  of  God  in  vain."  But  thi? 
were  impossible,  if  none  that  ever  had  it  could  perish. 

Gal.  v.  4.  "  Ye  are  fallen  from  grace." — Chap.  vi.  9,  "  We  shall  • 
reap,  if  we  faint  not."     Therefore,  we  shall  not  reap,  if  we  do. 

Hcb.  iii.  4,  "We  are  m.ade  partakers  of  Christ,  if  we  hold  the 
beginning  of  our  confidence  steadfast  unto  the  end." 


il6  PREDESTINATION  CALMLY  COKSIDEREP. 

2  Pet.  iii.  17,  "Beware,  lest  ye  also,  being  led  away  with  the 
error  of  the  wicked,  fall  from  your  own  steadfastness." 

2  John  8,  "Look  to  yourselves,  that  we  lose  not  the  things  which 
we  have  wrought." 

Rev.  iii.  11,  "  Hold  that  fast  which  thou  hast,  that  no  man  take 
thy  crown."     And  to  conclude, 

"  So  likewise  shall  my  heavenly  Father  do  also  unto  you,  if  ye, 
from  your  hearts,  forgive  not  every  one  his  brother  their  trespasses.'' 
Matt,  xviii.  35.  So  !  How  1  He  will  retract  the  pardon  he  had  given, 
and  deliver  you  to  the  tormentors. 

LXXX.  "  Why  then,  you  make  salvation  conditional."  I  make 
it  neither  conditional  nor  unconditional.  But  1  declare  just  what  I 
fmd  in  the  Bible,  neither  more  nor  less ;  namely,  that  it  is  bought 
for  every  child  of  man,  and  actually  given  to  every  one  that  be- 
lieve th.  If  you  call  this  condition  salvation,  God  made  it  so  from 
the  beginning  of  the  world  :  and  he  hath  declared  it  so  to  be,  at  sun- 
dry times,  and  in  diver  manners  ;  of  old  by  Moses  and  the  Prophets, 
and  in  latter  times  by  Christ  and  his  Apostles, 

"Then  I  can  never  be  saved  ;  for  I  can  perform  no  conditions; 
for  I  can  do  nothing."  No,  nor  I  ;  nor  any  man  under  heaven,-^- 
without  the  grace  of  God.  But  "  I  can  do  all  things  through  Christ 
strengthening  me."  So  can  you.  So  can  every  believer.  And  he 
has  strengthened,  and  will  strengthen  you  more  and  more,  if  you  do 
not  Avilfully  resist,  till  you  quench  his  Spirit. 

LXXXI.  "Nay,  but  God  must  work  irresistibly  in  me,  or  I  shall- 
iiever  be  saved."  Hold !  consider  that  word.  You  are  again  ad- 
vancing a  doctrine  which  has  not  one  plain,  clear  text  to  support  it 
I  allow,  God  may  possibly  at  some  times,  work  irresistibly  in  some 
souls.  I  believe  he  does.  But  can  you  infer  from  hence,  that  he 
nhcays  works  thus  in  all  that  are  saved  1  Alas,  my  brother,  what 
kind  of  conclusion  is  this?  And  by  what  scripture  will  you  prove  it  ? 
Where,  I  pray,  is  it  written,  that  none  are  saved  but  by  irresistible 
grace  ?  By  almighty  grace,  I  grant ;  by  that  power  alone,  to  which 
all  things  are  possible.  But  show  me  any  one  plain  scripture  for 
this.  That  "  all  saving  grace  is  irresistible." 

LXXXn.  But  this  doctrine  is  not  only  unsupported  by  Scripture, 
it  is  flatly  contrary  thereto.  How  will  you  reconcile  it,  to  instance 
in  a  very  few,  with  the  following  texts  ? 

Matt.  xxii.  3,  &c.  "  He  sent  to  call  them,  and  they  would  not 
come." 

Mark  vi.  5,  "  He  could  do  no  mighty  works  there,  because  of 
their  unbelief" 

Luke  V.  17,  "There  were  Pharisees,  and  the  power  of  the  Lord 
waspresent  to  heal  them."  Nevertheless  they  were  not  healed  in 
fact,  as  the  words  immediately  following  show.  Chap.  vii.  29,  "  The 
Pharisees  and  lawyers  made  void  the  counsel  of  God  against  them- 
selves." Chap.  xiii.  34,  "  O  Jerusalem,  Jerusalem,  how  often  would 
Ihave  gathered  thy  children,  and  ye  would  not." 


PREDESTllSrATION   CALMLY   CONSIDERED.  417 

John  vi.  G3,  &c.  "  It  is  the  spirit  that  quickeneth  ;  the  words  that 
I  speak  unto  you,  they  are  spirit.  But  there  are  some  of  you  that 
believe  not."     Therefore  that  Spirit  did  not  work  irresistibly. 

Acts  vii.  41,  "Ye  do  always  resist  the  Holy  Ghost:  as  your 
fathers  did,  so  do  ye."  Chap.  xiii.  46,  "  Ye  put  it  from  you,  and 
judge  yourselves  unworthy  of  eternal  life." 

Hcb.  iii.  8j  "  Wliile  it  is  called  to-day,  harden  not  your  heart." 
Ibid.  ver.  12,  "  Take  heed  lest  there  be  in  any  of  you  an  evil  heart 
of  unbelief,  in  departing  from  a  living  God."  Chap.  xii.  25,  "  Sec 
that  ye  refuse  not  him  that  speaketh," 

LXXXIII.  I  do  but  just  give  you  a  specimen  of  the  innumerable 
scriptures  which  might  be  produced  on  this  head.  And  why  will 
you  adhere  to  an  opinion  not  only  unsupported  by,  but  utterly  con- 
trary both  to  Reason  and  Scripture?  Be  pleased  to  observe  here  also, 
that  you  are  not  to  consider  the  doctrine  of  irresistible  grace  by 
itself,  any  more  than  that  of  unconditional  election,  or  final  perse- 
verance :  but  as  it  stands  in  connection  with  unconditional  reproba- 
tion, that  mill-stone  which  hangs  about  the  neck  of  your  whole 
iiypothcsis. 

Will  you  say,  "  I  adhere  to  it  because  of  its  usefulness  ?"  Wherein 
loes  that  usefulness  lie  1  "It  exalts  God,  and  debases  man."  In 
what  sense  does  it  exalt  God  ?  God.  in  himself  is  exalted  above  all 
praise.  Your  meaning  therefore  I  suppose  is  this  :  it  displays  to 
others  how  highly  he  is  exalted  in  justice,  mere} ,  and  truth.  But 
the  direct  contrary  of  this  has  been  shown  at  large  :  It  has  been 
shown  by  various  considerations,  that  God  is  not  exalted,  but  rather 
dishonoured,  and  that  in  the  highest  degree,  by  supposing  him  to  de^ 
spise  the  work  of  his  own  hands,  the  far  greater  part  of  the  souls 
which  he  Imth  made.  And  as  to  the  debasing  man  ;  if  you  mean,. 
"This  opinion  truly  humbles  the  men  that  hold  it ;"  I  fear  it  does  not: 
I  have  not  perceived  (and  I  have  had  large  occasion  to  make  the. 
trial)  that  all  or  even  the  generality  of  them  that  hold  it,  are  more 
humble  than  other  men.  Neither,  I  think,  will  you  say,  that  none 
are  humble,  who  hold  it  not :  so  that  it  is  neither  a  necessary  nor  a 
■erlain  mean  of  humility.  And  if  it  be  so  sometimes,  this  only 
proves  that  God  can  bring  good  out  of  evil. 

LXXXIV.  The  truth  is,  neither  this  opinion  nor  that,  but  the  love 
of  God  humbles  man,  and  that  only.  Let  but  this  be  shed  abroad 
in  his  heart,  and  he  abhors  himself  in  dust  and  ashes.  As  soon  as 
this  enters  into  his  soul,  lowly  shame  covers  his  face.  That  thought, 
AV^hat  is  God  1  What  hath  he  done  for  me  ?  is  immediately  followed 
l)y.  What  am  1 1  And  he  knoweth  not  what  to  do,  or  where  to  hide, 
or  how  to  abase  himself  enough  before  the  great  God  of  love,  of 
whom  he  now  knoweth,  that  "  as  his  majesty  is,  so  is  his  mercy." 
Let  him  who  has  felt  this,  (whatever  be  his  opinion,)  say,  whether  he 
could  then  take  glory  to  himself?  Whether  he  could  ascribe  to  him- 
self any  part  of  his  salvation,  or  the  glory  of  any  good  word  oj^ 
thought  1  Lean,  then,  who  will,  on  that  broken  reed  for  humility ; 
but  let  the  love  of  God  humble  my  soul ,! 


118  PREDESTINATION  CALMLY  CONSIDERED. 

LXXXV.  "Why,  this  is  the  very  thing  which  recommends  it. 
This  doctrine  makes  men  love  God."  I  answer,  as  before  :  acci- 
dentally it  may  ;  because  God  can  draw  good  out  of  evil.  But  you 
will  not  say,  All  who  hold  it,  love  God  ;  so  it  is  no  certain  mean  to 
that  end.  Nor  will  you  say,  That  none  love  him  who  hold  it  not. 
^Neither  therefore  is  it  a  necessary  mean.  But  indeed  when  you  talk 
at  all  of  its  "  making  men  love  God,"  you  know  not  what  you  do. 
You  lead  men  into  more  danger  than  you  are  aware  of.  You  almost 
unavoidably  lead  them  into  resting  on  that  opinion  :  you  cut  them 
off  from  a  true  dependence  on  the  Fountain  of  living  waters,  and 
strengthen  them  in  hewing  to  themselves  broken  cisterns  which  can 
hold  no  water. 

LXXXVI.  This  is  my  grand  objection  to  the  doctrine  of  repro- 
bation, or  (which  is  the  same)  unconditional  election.  That  it  is  an 
error,  I  know  ;  because  if  this  were  true,  the  whole  Scripture  must 
be  false.  But  it  is  not  only  lor  this,  because  it  is  an  error,  that  I  so 
earnestly  oppose  it,  but  because  it  is  an  error  of  so  perjiicious  con- 
sequences to  the  souls  of  men ;  because  it  directly  and  naturally 
tends  to  hinder  the  inward  work  of  God  in  every  stage  of  it. 

LXXXVII.  For  instance;  is  a  man  careless  and  unconcerned  ? 
utterly  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins  1  Exhort  him  then  (suppose  he 
is  of  your  own  opinion)  to  take  some  care  of  his  immortal  soul.  "  I 
take  care  !"  says  he,  "  what  signifies  my  care  1  why,  what  must  be, 
must  be.  If  I  am  elect,  I  must  be  saved;  and  if  I  am  not,  I  musf 
be  damned."  And  the  reasoning  is  as  just  and  strong  as  it  is  obvious 
and  natural.  It  avails  not  to  say,  "  \len  may  abuse  any  doctrine." 
So  they  may.  But  this  is  not  abusing  your's.  it  is  the  plain,  natu- 
ral «.se  of  it.  The  premises  cannot  be  denied,  (on  your  scheme,} 
and  the  consequence  is  equally  clear  and  undeniable.  Is  he  a  little 
serious  and  thoughtful  now  and  then,  though  generally  cold  and 
lukewarm  1  press  him  then  to  stir  up  the  gift  that  is  in  him,  to  work 
out  his  own  salvation  with  fear  and  trembling.  Alas !  says  he,  what 
can  I  do?  you  know  man  can  do  nothing.  If  you  reply.  But  you 
do  not  desire  salvation ;  you  are  not  willing  to  be  saved.  It  may  be 
so,  says  he,  but  God  shall  make  me  willing  in  the  day  of  his  power. 
So  waiting  for  irresistible  grace,  he  falls  faster  asleep  than  ever. 
See  him  again,  when  he  thoroughly  awakes  out  of  sleep ;  when,  in 
spite  of  his  principles,  fearfulness  and  trembling  are  come  upon  him, 
and  a  horrible  dread  hath  overwhelmed  him.  How  then  will  you 
comfort  one  who  is  well  nigh  swallowed  up  of  overmuch  sorrow  1 
If  at  all,  by  applying  the  promises  of  God.  But  against  these  he  is 
fenced  on  every  side.  These,  indeed,  says  he,  are  great  and  pre- 
cious promises ;  but  they  belong  to  the  elect  only.  Therefore  they 
are  nothing  to  me.  I  am  not  of  that  number,  and  I  never  can  be  : 
for  his  decree  is  unchangeable.  Has  he- already  tasted  of  the  good 
word,  and  the  powers  of  the  world  to  comel  being  justified  by  faith, 
hath  he  peace  with  God  1  then  sin  hath  no  dominion  over  him.  But 
by  and  by,  considering  he  may  fall  foully  indeed,  but  cannot  fall 
finally,  he  is  not  so  jealous  over  himself  as  he  was  at  first,  he  grows 


PKEDESTIIVATION    CALMLY    CONSIDERED.  419 

a  little  and  a  little  slacker,  till  ere  long  he  falls  again  into  the  sin 
from  which  he  was  clean  escaped.  As  soon  as  you  perceive  he  is 
entangled  again  and  overcome,  you  apply  the  scriptures  relating  to 
that  state.  You  conjure  him  not  to  harden  his  heart  any  more,  lest 
his  last  state  be  worse  than  the  first.  "  How  can  that  be  "?"  says  he, 
"  once  in  grace,  always  in  grace  ;  and  I  am  sure  I  was  in  grace 
once.  You  shall  never  tear  away  my  shield."  ,  So  he  sins  on,  and 
sleeps  on,  till  he  awakes  in  hell ! 

LXXXVIII.  The  observing  these  melancholy  examples  day  by 
day,  this  dreadful  havoc  which  the  Devil  makes  of  souls,  especially 
of  those  who  had  begun  to  run  well,  by  means  of  this  antiscripturai 
doctrine,  constrains  me  to  oppose  it  from  the  same  principle,  where- 
on I  labour  to  save  souls  from  destruction.  Nor  is  it  sufficient  to 
ask.  Are  there  not  also  many  who  lorest  the  opposite  doctrine  to  their 
own  destruction  ]  If  there  are,  that  is  nothing  to  the  point  in  ques- 
tion ;  for  that  is  not  the  case  here.  Here  is  no  wresting  at  all :  the 
doctrine  of  absolute  predestination  naturally  leads  to  the  chambers 
of  death. 

Let  an  instance  in  each  kind  be  proposed,  and  the  difference  is  so 
broad,  he  that  runneth  may  read  it.  I  say,  "  Christ  died  for  all. 
He  tasted  death  for  every  man,  and  he  wllleth  all  men  to  be  saved." 
"O,"  says  a  hearer,  "then  I  can  be  saved  when  1  will;  so  I  may 
safely  sin  a  Uttle  longer."  No,  this  is  no  consequence  from  what  1 
said  :  the  words  are  wrested  to  infer  what  does  not  follow.  You  say, 
"  Christ  died  only  for  the  elect :  and  all  these  must  and  shall  be 
saved."  "  O,"  says  a  hearer,  "then,  if  I  am  one  of  the  elect,  I 
must  and  shall  be  saved  ;  therefore  I  may  safely  sin  a  little  longer ; 
tor  my  salvation  cannot  fail."  Now  this  is  a  fair  consequence  from 
what  you  said  ;  the  words  are  not  wrested  at  all.  No  more  is  infer- 
red than  what  plainly  and  undeniably  follows  from  the  premises. 
And  the  very  same  observation  may  be  made  on  every  article  of  that 
doctrine.  Every  branch  of  it,  as  well  as  this,  (however  the  wisdom 
of  God  may  sometimes  draw  good  out  of  it,)  has  a  natural,  genuine 
tendency,  without  any  wresting,  either  to  prevent  or  obstruct  holi- 
ness. 

LXXXIX.  Brethren,  would  ye  lie  for  the  cause  of  God  1  I  ani 
j)ersuaded  ye  would  not.  Think  then  that  as  ye  are,  so  am  1 :  1 
speak  the  truth,  before  God,  my  Judge  :  not  of  those  who  were 
trained  up  therein,  but  of  those  who  were  lately  brought  over  to  youi 
opinion.  Many  of  these  have  I  known,  but  I  have  not  known  one 
in  ten  of  all  that  number,  in  whom  it  did  not  speedily  work  some  of 
the  above-named  effects,  according  to  the  state  of  soul  they  were 
then  in.  And  one  only  have  I  known  among  them  all,  after  the 
closest  and  most  impartial  observation,  who  did  not  evidently  show, 
within  one  year,  that  his  heart  was  changed,  not  for  the  better,  but 
lor  the  worse. 

XC.  I  know  indeed  ye  cannot  easily  believe  this.  But  whether 
ye  believe  it  or  not,  you  believe,  as  well  as  I,  that  without  holiness 
no  man  shall  see  the  Lord.     May  we  not  then,  at  least,  join  in  this ; 


■120  THE   SCEIPTUHE   DOCTRINE 

in  declaring  the  nature  of  inward  holiness,  and  testifying  to  all  tiit 
necessity  of  itl  May  we  not  all  thus  far  join,  in  tearing  away  the 
broken  reeds  whereon  so  many  rest,  without  either  inward  or  out- 
ward  holiness,  and  which  they  idly  trust  will  supply  its  place  ?  As 
far  as  is  possible,  let  us  join  in  destroying  the  works  of  the  Devil, 
and  in  setting  up  the  kingdom  of  God  upon  earth,  in  promoting 
iighteousness,  peace,  and  joy,  in  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Of  whatever  opinion  or  denomination  we  are,  we  must  serve  either 
God  or  the  Devil.  If  we  serve  God  our  agreement  is  far  greater 
than  our  difference.  Therefore,  as  far  as  may  be,  setting  aside  the 
difference,  let  us  unite  in  destroying  the  works  of  the  Devil,  in  bring- 
ing all  we  can  from  the  power  of  darkness  into  the  kingdom  of  God's 
dear  Son.  And  let  us  assist  each  other  to  value  more  and  more  the 
glorious  grace  v^hereby  we  stand,  and  daily  to  grow  in  that  grace, 
and  in  the  knowledare  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 


THE 

^^CRIPTURE  DOCTRINE 

CONCERNING 

PREDESTINATION;   ELECTION, 

AND 

REPROBATION. 


"  Therefore  we  both  labour  and  suffer  reproach,  because  we  (rust  in  tlie  living  God; 
who  is  the  Saviour  of  all  men,  especially  of  them  that  believe."   1  Tim.  iv.  10. 


1.  THE  Scripture  saith,  "  God  hath  chosen  us  in  Christ,  belorf. 
iJae  foundation  of  the  world,  that  we  should  be  holy,  and  without 
blame  before  him  in  love."  (Eph.  i.  4.)  And  St.  Peter  calls  the 
j^aints,  "  Elect  according  to  the  foreknowledge  of  God  the  Father, 
through  sanctification  of  the  Spirit,  unto  obedience."  (1  Pet.  i.  2.) 
And  St.  Paul  saith  unto  them,  "  God  hath  from  the  beginning  chosen 
you  to  salvation,  through  sanctification  of  the  Spirit,  and  belief  oi' 
the  truth  ;  whereunto  he  hath  called  you  by  our  gospel,  to  the  ob- 
taining of  the  glory  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  (2  Thess.  ii.  13,  14.) 

2.  From  all  these  places  of  Scripture,  it  is  plain  that  God  hath 
chosen  some  to  life  and  glory,  before  or  from  the  foundation  of  the 


CONCERNING  PREDESTINATION,    &C.  421 

world.  And  the  wisdom  of  all  Christians  is,  to  labour  that  their 
judgments  may  be  informed  herein,  according  to  the  Scripture. 
And  to  that  end  let  us  consider  the  manner  of  God's  speaking  to  the 
sons  of  men. 

3.  God  saith  to  Abraham,  "As  it  is  written,  I  have  made  thee  a 
father  of  many  nations,  before  him  whom  he  believed,  even  God  who 
quickeneth  the  dead,  and  calleth  things  that  are  not  as  though  they 
were."  (Rom.  iv.  17.)  Observe,  God  speaks  then,  at  that  present 
time,  to  Abraham,  saying,  "  I  have  made  thee  a  father  of  many  na- 
tions," notwithstanding  Abraham  was  not  at  that  time  the  father  of 
one  child,  but  Ishmael.  How  then  must  we  understand,  "  I  have 
made  thee  a  father  of  many  nations  1" 

4.  The  Apostle  tells  us  plainly,  it  was  so,  "  Before  God,  who 
calleth  things  that  are  not,  as  though  they  were."  And  so  he  called 
Abraham,  "  The  father  of  many  nations,"  though  he  was  not  as  yet 
the  father  even  of  Isaac,  "  in  whom  his  seed  was  to  be  called." 

5.  God  uselh  the  same  manner  of  speaking,  when  he  calleth 
Christ,  "  The  Lamb  slain  from  the  foundation  of  the  world,"  (Rev. 
xiii.  8  ;)  although  indeed  he  was  not  slain  for  several  thousands  of 
years  after.  Here  therefore  we  may  easily  understand  what  he 
speaketh  of  "electing  us  from  the  foundation  of  the  world." 

6.  God  calleth  Abraham  "  a  father  of  many  nations,"  though  not 
so  at  that  time.  He  calleth  Christ  "  The  Lamb  slain  from  the 
foundation  of  the  world,"  though  not  slain  till  he  was  a  man  in  the 
flesh.  Even  so  he  calleth  men  "  elected  from  the  foundation  of  the 
world,"  though  not  elected  till  they  were  men  in  the  flesh.  Yet  it  is 
all  so  before  God,  who  knoweth  all  things  from  eternity,  and  "  call- 
eth things  that  are  not,  as  though  they  were." 

7.  By  all  which  it  is  clear,  that  as  Christ  was  called  "  The  Lamb 
slain  from  the  foundation  of  the  world,"  and  yet  not  slain  till  several 
thousands  of  years  after;  so  also  men  are  called  "Elect  from  the 
foundation  of  the  world,"  and  yet  are  not  elected  perhaps  till  several 
thousands  of  years  after,  till  the  day  of  their  conversion  to  God. 

8.  And  indeed  this  is  plain  without  going  farther,  from  those 
very  words  of  St.  Peter,  "Elect  according  to  the  fore-knowledge  of 
God,  through  sanctification  of  the  Spirit  unto  obedience."  For,  If 
the  Elect  are  chosen  through  the  sanctification  of  the  Spirit,  then 
they  were  not  chosen  before  they  were  sanctified  by  the  Spirit.  But 
they  were  not  sanctified  by  the  Spirit,  before  they  had  a  being.  It 
is  plain  then,  either  were  they  chosen  from  the  foundation  of  the 
world.  But  "God  calleth  things  that  are  not,  as  though  they  were." 

9.  This  is  also  plain  from  those  words  of  St.  Paul,  "God  hath 
from  the  beginning  chosen  you  unto  salvation,  through  sanctifica- 
tion of  the  Spirit,  and  belief  of  the  truth."     Now, 

If  the  saints  are  chosen  to  salvation,  through  believing  of  the 
truth,  and  were  called  to  believe  that  truth  by  hearing  of  the  gospel, 
then  they  were  not  chosen  before  they  believed  the  truth,  and  be- 
fore they  heard  the  gospel,  whereby  they  were  called  to  believe. 
But  they  were  chosen  through  belief  of  the  truth,  and  called  to 

Vol.  9.— N  n 


422  THE   SCBIPTURE   DnCTHINR 

believe  it  by  the  gospel.  Therefore  they  were  not  chosen  before  ihef 
believed :  much  less  before  they  had  a  being,  any  more  than  Christ 
was  slain  before  he  had  a  being.  So  plain  it  is,  that  they  were  not 
elected,  till  they  believed ;  although  "  God  calleth  things  that  are  not, 
as  though  they  were." 

10.  Again,  how  plain  is  it,  where  St.  Paul  saith,  that  they  whom 
"  God  did  predestinate,  according  to  the  counsel  of  his  own  will,  to 
be  to  the  praise  of  his  glory,"  were  such  as  did  "  first  trust  in  Christ  1" 
(Eph.  i.  11,  12.)  And  in  the  very  next  verse,  he  saith,  that  they 
"  trusted  in  Christ  after  they  heard  the  word  of  truth,"  (not  before.) 
But  they  did  not  hear  the  word  before  they  were  born.  Therefore, 
it  is  plain,  the  act  of  election  is  "  in  time,"  though  known  of  God 
before ;  who,  according  to  his  knowledge,  often  speaketh  of  the 
things  "  which  are  not,  as  though  they  were."  And  thus  is  the  gi'eat 
stumbling-block  about  Election  taken  away,  that  men  may  "make 
their  calling  and  election  sure." 

11.  The  Scripture  tells  us  as  plainly  what  predestination  is :  It  is, 
God's  fore-appointing  obedient  believers  to  salvation,  not  without,  but 
"according  to  his  fore-knowledge"  of  all  their  works,  "from  the 
foundation  of  the  world."  And  so  likewise  he  predestinates  or  fore- 
appoints  all  disobedient  unbelievers  to  damnation,"  not  without,  but 

•according  to  his  fore-knowledge"  of  all  their  works,  "from  the 
foundation  of  the  world." 

13.  We  may  consider  this  a  little  farther.  "  God,  from  the  foun- 
dation of  ^he  world,  foreknew  all  men's  believing  or  not  believing. 

Vnd  according  to  this  his  fore-knowledge,  he  chose  or  elected  all  obe- 
client  believers,  as  such,  to  salvation,  and  refused  or  reprobated  all  dis- 
'^bedient  unbelievers,  as  such,  to  damnation.  Thus  the  Scriptures 
•  each  us  to  consider  Election  and  Reprobation  "according  to  the 
tbre-knowledge  of  God  from  the  foundation  of  the  world." 

13.  But  here  some  may  object,  that  I  hold  our  faith  and  obediencfe 
!0  be  the  cause  of  God's  electing  us  to  glory. 

I  answer,  I  do  hold,  that  faith  in  Christ  producing  obedience  to 
iiim  is  a  cause  without  ivhich  God  electeth  none  to  glory  ;  for  we  never 
1  cad  of  God's  electing  to  glory,  any  who  lived  and  died  a  disobedient 
iuibeliever.  But  I  do  not  hold,  that  it  is  the  came  for  which  he  elects 
any  :  the  contrary  of  this  is  easily  shown,  thus : 

Suppose  my  obedience  is  a  cause  of  my  election  to  salvation,  wliat 
is  the  cause  of  my  obedience  ?     Ans.  My  love  to  Christ. 

But  what  is  the  cause  of  my  love  to  Christ?  Ans.  My  faith  in 
Christ. 

But  what  is  the  cause  of  my  faith  in  Christ  ?  Ans.  The  preaching 
of  the  gospel  of  Christ. 

But  what  is  the  cause  of  the  preaching  the  gospel  to  us  ?  Anss 
Christ's  dying  for  us. 

But  what  is  the  cause  of  Christ's  dying  for  us  ?  Ans.  God's  great 
rOve  of  pity  wherewith  he  loved  us,  even  when  we  were  dead  in  tres- 
passes and  sins. 

14.  Thus  all  men  may  see,  that  I  do  not  hold,  God  chose  any  man 
to  life  and  salvation,  for  any  good  which  he  had  done,  or  for  any 


COXCEBXIJsCi    rREDESTlXATION,  &LC.  423 

which  was  in  him,  before  he  put  it  there.     And  this  I  shall  now  show 
more  at  large  from  the  oracles  of  God. 

1.  God's  great  love  of  pity  wherewith  he  loved  the  sons  of  men. 
even  while  they  were  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins,  was  the  cause  of 
his  sending  his  Son  to  die  for  them  ;  as  appears  from  the  following; 
scriptures :  "  God  so  loved  the  world,  that  he  gave  his  only  begotten 
Son,  to  the  end  that  all  who  believe  in  him,  should  not  perish,  but 
have  everlasting  life."  (John  iii.  16.)  For  "when  we  were  yet 
without  strength,  in  due  time  Christ  died  for  the  ungodly."  (Rom.  v. 
6,  &c.)  And,  "  God  commendeth  his  love  to  us,  in  that  while  we 
were  yet  sinners,  Christ  died  for  us." 

2.  Christ's  dying  for  our  sins  is  the  cause  of  the  gospel's  being 
preached  to  us,  as  appears  from  these  scriptures,  "  Jesus  came  and 
spake  unto  them,  saying,  '  All  power  is  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and 
earth.  Go  ye  therefore  and  teach  all  nations.'  (Matt,  xxviii.  18.) 
*  Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature.'  " 
(Mark  xvi.  15.) 

3.  The  gospel's  being  preached  to  sinners  is  the  cause  of  their  be- 
lieving, as  appears  from  those  scriptures,  "  How  shall  they  call  on 
him  in  whom  they  have  not  believed  ?  And  how  shall  they  believe 
in  him  of  whom  they  have  not  heard  ?  And  how  shall  they  hear 
without  a  preacher  ?  So  then  faith  cometh  by  hearing,  and  hearing 
by  the  word  of  God."  (Rom.  x.  1.5,  &c.) 

4.  Men's  believing  is  the  cause  of  their  justification,  as  appears 
from  these  scriptures,  "By  him  all  that  believe  are  justified  from  all 
things."  (Acts  xiii.  39.)  "  He  is  the  justifier  of  ail  that  believe  in 
Jesus.  Therefore  we  conclude  that  a  man  is  justified  by  faith,  with- 
out the  deeds  of  the  law."  (Rom.  iii.  26,  &:c.)  "  Abraham  believed 
God,  and  it  was  imputed  to  him  for  righteousness.  Now  it  was  not 
written  for  his  sake  alone,  that  it  was  imputed  to  him  ;  but  for  us  also 
to  whom  it  shall  be  imputed,  if  we  believe  on  him  that  raised  up  Jesus 
from  the  dead ;  who  was  delivered  for  our  oftences,  and  rose  again 
lor  our  justification."  (Rom.  iv.  3.  23,  &c.) 

5.  Our  knowing  ourselves  justified  by  faith,  is  the  cause  of  our  love 
to  Christ,  as  appears  from  these  scriptures  ;  "  Herein  is  love,  not  that 
we  loved  God,  but  that  he  loved  us,  and  sent  his  Son  to  be  the  pro- 
pitiation for  our  sins."  (1  John  iv.  10.)  "  We  love  him,  because  he 
first  loved  us."  (1  John  iv.  19.) 

6.  Our  love  to  Christ  is  the  cause  of  our  obeying  him,  as  appears 
from  those  scriptures,  "  If  ye  love  me,  keep  my  commandments.  He 
that  hath  my  commandments  and  keepeth  them,  he  it  is  that  lovetii 
me."  (John  xiv.  15.  21,  &c.)  And,  "  If  any  man  love  me,  he  will 
keep  my  words.  For  this  is  the  love  of  God,  that  we  keep  his  com- 
mandments." (1  John  v.  3.) 

7.  Our  obeying  Christ  is  the  cause  of  his  giving  us  eternal  life,  as 
appears  from  those  scriptures,  "  Not  every  one  that  saith  unto  me, 
Lord,  Lord,  shall  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven  :  but  he  that  doeth 
the  will  of  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven."  (Matt.  vii.  21.)  "  Bless- 
ed are  they  that  do  his  commandments,  that  they  may  have  right  to 
the  tree  of  life,  and  may  enter  in  through  the  gates  into  the  city." 


424  THE  SCHIPTUEE   DOCTBINU 

(Rev.  xxii.  14.)  And,  "  Christ  being  made  perfect  through  suffer 
ings,  he  became  the  author  of  eternal  salvation  to  all  that  obey  him/' 
(Heb.  V.  9.) 

15.  This  may  be  more  briefly  expressed  thus : 

1 .  God's  love  was  the  cause  of  his  sending  his  Son  to  die  for  sin- 
ners. 

2.  Christ's  dying  for  sinners  is  the  cause  of  the  gospel's  being 
preached. 

3.  The  preaching  of  the  gospel  is  the  cause  (or  means)  of  our  be- 
lieving. 

4.  Our  believing  is  the  cause  (or  condition)  of  our  justification. 

5.  The  knowing  ourselves  justified  through  his  blood,  is  the  cause 
of  our  love  to  Christ. 

6.  Our  love  to  Christ  Ls  the  cause  of  our  obedience  to  him. 

7.  Our  obedience  to  Christ  is  the  cause  of  his  becoming  the  Author 
of  eternal  salvation  to  us. 

16.  These  following  things  therefore  ought  well  to  be  considered 
by  ail  that  fear  God. 

1.  There  was  a  necessity  of  God's  love  in  sending  his  Son  to  die 
for  us,  without  which  he  had  not  come  to  die. 

2.  There  was  a  necessity  of  Christ's  love  in  dying  for  us,  without 
which  the  gospel  could  not  have  been  preached.    . 

3.  There  was  a  necessity  of  the  gospel's  being  preached,  without 
which  there  could  have  been  no  believing. 

4.  There  is  a  necessity  of  our  believing  the  gospel,  without  which 
we  cannot  be  justified. 

5.  There  is  a  necessity  of  our  being  justified  by  faith  in  the  blood 
of  Christ,  without  which  we  cannot  come  to  know  that  he  "  loved 
us,  and  washed  us  from  our  sins  in  his  own  blood." 

6.  There  is  a  necessity  of  our  knowing  his  love,  who  first  loved  us, 
without  which  we  cannot  love  him  again. 

7.  There  is  a  necessity  for  our  loving  him,  without  which  we  can- 
not keep  his  commandments. 

8.  There  is  a  necessity  of  our  keeping  his  commandments,  with- 
out which  we  cannot  enter  into  eternal  life. 

By  all  which  we  see,  that  there  is  as  great  a  necessity  of  our  keep- 
ing the  commandments  of  God,  as  there  was  of  God's  sending  his 
Son  into  the  world,  or  of  Christ's  dying  for  our  sins. 

17.  But  for  whose  sins  did  Christ  die  ?  Did  he  die  for  all  men, 
or  but  for  some  ? 

To  this  also  I  will  answer  by  the  Scriptures,  showing,  1.  The  tes- 
timony of  the  Prophets.  2.  Of  the  Angel  of  God.  3.  Of  Christ 
himself     And,  4.  Of  his  Apostles. 

First,  the  Prophet  Isaiah  saith  thus,  "  Surely  he  hath  borne  our 
griefs,  and  carried  our  sorrows ;  yet  did  we  esteem  him  stricken, 
smitten  of  God,  and  afflicted.  But  he  was  wounded  for  our  trans- 
gressions, he  was  bruised  for  our  iniquities,  the  chastisement  of  our 
peace  was  upon  him,  and  with  his  stripes  we  are  healed.  All  we, 
like  sheep,  have  gone  astray  ;  we  have  turned  every  one  to  his  own 
n  ay  ;  and  the  Lord  hath  laid  on  him  the  iniquity  of  us  all."  (Isaiali 


CONCEIIMNG    PREDESTINATION,  &IC.  425 

iiii.  4 — 6.)  Thus  Isaiah  shows  plainly,  that  the  iniquities  of  all  those 
who  went  astray,  were  laid  upon  Christ.  And  to  him  the  testimony 
of  all  the  other  prophets  agrees :  "  To  him  gave  all  the  Prophets 
witness,  that  through  his  name  whosoever  believeth  in  him  shall  re- 
ceive remission  of  sins."  (Acts  x.  43.)  The  same  saith  that  great 
Prophet,  John  the  Baptist,  who  "  came  to  bear  witness  of  the  light, 
that  all  men  through  it  might  believe."  (John  i.  7.)  And  again,  "Be- 
hold," sailh  he,  "  the  Lamb  of  God,  that  taketh  away  the  sins  of  the 
world."  (ver.  29.)  Thus  have  all  the  Prophets  with  one  consent  tes- 
tified, that  God  "  laid  upon  Christ  the  iniquities  of  all  that  were  gone 
astray  ;"  that  he  is  "  the  Lamb  of  God,  which  taketh  away  the  sins 
of  the  world  ;"  that  "all  men  through  him  may  believe  ;"  and  that 
"  through  iiis  name  whosoever  believeth  in  him,  shall  receive  remis- 
sion of  sins." 

Secondly,  The  Angel  of  God  testified  the  same  thing,  saying, 
"  Fear  not ;  for  I  bring  you  glad  tidings  of  great  joy,  which  shall  be 
to  all  people,"  wiiich  were,  that  there  was  "born  unto  them  a  Sa- 
viour, even  Christ  the  Lord."  (Luke  ii.  10.)  By  this  also  it  appears, 
that  Christ  died  for  all  men.  For  else  it  could  not  have  been  glad 
tidings  of  great  joy,  to  all  people  ;  but  rather  sad  tidings  to  all  those 
for  whom  lie  died  not. 

Thirdly,  We  come  now  to  the  words  of  Christ  himself,  who  knew 
his  own  business  better  than  any  man  else ;  and  therefore,  if  his  tes- 
timony agree  with  these,  we  must  needs  be  convinced  that  they  arc 
true.  Now  he  speaks  thus,  "  As  Moses  lifted  up  the  serpent  in  the 
wilderness,  even  so  must  the  vSon  of  man  be  lifted  up,  that  whosoever 
believeth  in  him  should  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life.  For  God 
so  loved  the  world,  that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son,  that  whoso- 
ever believeth  in  him,  should  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life. 
For  God  sent  not  his  Son  to  condemn  the  world,  but  that  the  world 
through  him  might  be  saved."  (John  iii.  14,  &c.)  Thus  we  see  the 
words  of  Christ  agree  with  tlie  words  of  the  Prophets;  therefore  it 
must  needs  be  owned  that  Christ  died  for  all. 

Fourthly,  And  now  we  will  hear  what  the  Apostles  say  concern-, 
ing  this  thing.  "  The  love  of  Christ,"  saith  the  Apostle  Paul,  "con- 
strainetli  us,  because  we  thus  judge,  that  if  one  died  for  all,  then  were 
all  dead ;  and  that  he  died  for  all,  that  they  which  live  should  not 
henceforth  live  unto  themselves,  but  unto  him  that  died  for  them,  and 
rose  again."  (2  Cor.  v.  14,  &c.)  And  to  Timothy  he  saith,  "  There 
is  one  God,  and  one  Mediator  between  God  and  man,  the  man  Christ 
Jesus,  who  gave  himself  a  ransom  for  all,  to  be  testified  in  due  time." 
(1  Tim.  ii.  5,  6.)  Again,  he  saith  to  Titus,  "The  grace  of  God, 
which  bringeth  salvation  to  all  men,  hath  appeared."  (Tit.  ii.  11.) 
And  yet  again  to  the  Hebrews,  "  That  he,  by  the  grace  of  God. 
should  taste  death  for  every  man."  (Heb.  ii.  9.)  And  to  this  agreeth 
St.  John,  witnessing,  "  He  is  the  propitiation  for  our  sins,  and  not  for 
ours  only,  but  also  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world."  (1  John  ii.  3.) 
And  again,  speaking  of  himself  and  the  rest  of  the  Apostles,  he  saith, 
"  We  have  seen  and  do  testify  that  the  Father  sent  the  Son  to  be  the 
Saviour  of  the  world."  (I  John  iv.  14.)     Thus  we  huve  the  tesfi- 

Nii2 


426  THE   SCRIPTURE  »OCTRINE 

mony  of  all  the  Prophets,  of  the  Angel  of  God,  of  Christ  himself, 
and  of  his  holy  Apostles,  all  agreeing  together  in  one  to  prove,  that 
Christ  died  for  all  mankind. 

18.  What  then  can  they,  who  deny  this,  say  ?  Why,  they  com- 
monly say,  all  men,  in  these  scriptures,  does  not  mean  all  men,  but 
only  the  elect ;  that  every  man  here  does  not  mean  every  man,  but  only 
every  one  of  the  elect ;  that  the  world  does  not  mean  the  whole  world, 
but  only  the  world  of  believers ;  and  that  the  whole  world,  in  St.  John's 
words,  does  not  mean  the  ichole  world,  but  only,  the  whole  world  ol" 
the  elect. 

19.  To  this  shameless,  senseless  evasion,  I  answer  thus: 

If  the  Scripture  no  where  speaks  of  a  world  of  believers  or  elect, 
ihen  we  have  no  ground,  reason,  pretence,  or  excuse,  for  saying, 
Christ  died  only  for  a  world  of  believers,  or  elect.  But  the  Scrip- 
ture nowhere  speaks  of  such  a  world.  Therefore  we  have  no  ground 
or  pretence  for  speaking  thus. 

Nay,  the  Scripture  is  so  far  from  calling  believers,  or  elected  per- 
sons, the  world,  that  they  are  every  where  in  Scripture  plainly  and  ex- 
pressly distinguished  from  the  world.  "  If  ye  were  of  the  world," 
saith  Christ,  "  the  world  would  love  its  own ;  but  because  I  have 
chosen  you  out  of  the  world,  therefore  the  w^orld  hateth  you."  (John 
XV.  19.) 

20.  But  let  the  Scripture  itself  speak,  what  world  Christ  died  for. 
'  When  we  were  without  strength  Christ  died  for  the  ungodly. 
While  we  were  yet  sinners,  Christ  died  for  us.  When  we  were 
enemies,  we  were  reconciled  to  God  by  the  death  of  his  Son."  (Rom. 
V.  6.  10.)  From  all  which  we  may  clearly  see,  that  Christ  died  for 
the  world  of  the  ungodly,  for  the  world  of  sinners,  for  the  icorld  of  his 
enemies ;  the  just  one  for  the  world  of  the  unjust.  But  the  elect,  as 
elect,  are  not  unjust.  Therefore  he  died  not  for  the  elect,  as  elect ; 
but  even  for  that  world  St.  John  speaks  of,  when  he  says,  "  the  whole 
world  lieth  in  wickedness." 

21.  If  it  be  said,  "  The  elect  were  sinners  once  as  well  as  others ;" 
I  answer,  true  ;  but  not  as  they  are  elect  in  Christ,  but  as  they  were 
out  of  Christ,  "  without  hope,  and  without  God  in  the  world."  There- 
fore, to  say  that  Christ  died  for  the  elect,  as  elect,  is  absolute  nonsense 
and  confusion. 

22.  To  put  this  matter  out  of  doubt,  I  would  commend  these  fol- 
lowing considerations  to  all  sober-minded  men. 

1.  The  Scripture  saith,  "Christ  came  to  seek  and  to  save  that 
which  was  lost." 

--  But  the  elect,  as  elect,  were  not  lost. 

Therefore  Christ  died  not  for  the  elect,  as  or  because  they  were 
elect ;  for  that  had  been  to  seek  and  save  what  was  found  and  saved 
before. 

2.  The  Scripture  saith,  Christ  died  for  the  unjust. 
But  the  elect,  as  such,  are  not  unjust. 

Therefore  Christ  died  not  for  the  elect,  as  elect ;  for  that  had  been 
to  justify  them  who  were  just  before. 

3.  The  Scripture  saith,  "  He  came  to  preach  deliverance  to  the 
captives." 


CONCERNING  phedestination,  &c.  427 

But  the  elect,  as  elect,  are  not  captives ;  for  Christ  hath  set  them  free. 

Therefore  he  died  not  for  the  elect,  as  elect ;  for  that  had  been  to 
set  them  at  liberty  who  were  at  liberty  before. 

4.  The  Scripture  saith,  "  He  quickened  them  who  were  dead  in 
trespasses  and  sins,  such  as  were  without  Christ,  aliens  from  the  com- 
monwealth of  Israel,  and  strangers  to  the  covenants  of  promise,  with- 
out hope  and  without  God  in  the  world." 

But  the  elect,  as  such,  are  not  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins,  but  alive 
unto  God.  Neither  are  they  without  Christ ;  for  they  are  chosen  in 
him:  nor  are  they  "aliens  from  the  commonwealth  of  Israel,  and 
strangers  to  the  covenants  of  promise."  But  they  are  "  fellow-citi- 
zens with  the  saints,  and  the  household  of  God." 

Therefore  Christ  died  not  for  the  elect,  as  or  because  they  were 
elect.  For  that  had  been  to  quicken  them  that  were  alive  before,  and 
to  bring  them  into  covenant  who  were  in  covenant  before.  And 
thus,  by  these  men's  account,  our  Lord  lost  his  labour  of  love,  and 
accomplished  A  SOLEMN  NOTHING ! 

23.  Thus  having  shown  the  grievous  folly  of  those  who  say,  that 
Christ  died  for  none  but  the  elect,  I  shall  now  prove,  by  undeniable 
reasons,  that  he  died  for  all  mankind. 

Reas.  1.  Because  all  the  Prophets,  the  Angel  of  God,  Christ  him- 
self, and  his  holy  Apostles,  with  one  consent,  affirm  it. 

Reas.  2.  Because  there  is  not  one  scripture,  from  the  beginning  of 
Genesis  to  the  end  of  the  Revelation,  that  denies  it,  either  negatively, 
bysaying,  that  he  did  not  die  for  all;  or  affirmatively,  by  saying,  that 
he  died  only  for  some. 

Reas.  3.  Because  he  himself  commanded,  that  the  gospel  should 
be  preached  to  every  creature. 

Reas.  4.  Because  he  calleth  all  men,  everywhere  to  repent. 

Reas.  5.  Because  those  who  perish  are  damned  for  not  believing  in 
the  name  of  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God,  therefore,  he  must  have  died 
for  them.     Else  they  would  be  damned /or  not  believing  a  lie. 

Reas.  6.  Because  they  which  are  damned  might  have  been  saved. 
For  thus  saith  the  word  of  God,  "  They  received  not  the  love  of  the 
truth  that  they  might  be  saved.  Therefore  God  shall  send  them  strong 
delusions,  to  believe  a  lie,  that  they  all  may  be  damned."  (2  Thess- 
ii.  10.) 

Reas.  7.  Because  some  "deny  the  Lord  that  bought  them,  and 
bring  upon  themselves  swift  destruction."  But  they  could  not  deny 
the  Lord  that  bought  them,  if  he  had  not  bought  them  at  all. 

24.  I  shall  now  briefly  show  the  dreadful  absurdities  that  follo^-C- 
from  saying,  Christ  died  only  for  the  elect. 

1.  If  Christ  died  not  for  all,  then  unbelief  is  no  sin  in  them  that 
perish  ;  seeing  there  is  not  any  thing  for  those  men  to  believe  unto 
salvation,  for  whom  Christ  died  not. 

2.  If  Christ  died  not  for  all  men,  then  it  would  be  a  sin  in  the 
greatest  part  of  mankind  to  believe  he  died  for  them ;  seeing  it  would 
be  to  believe  a  lie. 

3.  If  Christ  died  not  for  those  that  are  damned,  then  they  are  not 
damned  for  unbelief.  Otherwise,  you  say,  that  they  are  damned  for 
not  believing  a  lie. 


128  THE   SCRIPTURE  DOCTRINE 

4.  If  Christ  died  not  for  all,  then  those  who  obey  Christ,  by  goiiiji 
and  preaching  the  gospel  to  every  creature,  as  glad  tidings  of  grace 
and  peace,  of  great  joy  to  all  people,  do  sin  thereby,  in  that  they  go 
to  most  people  with  a  lie  in  their  mouth. 

5.  If  Christ  died  not  for  all  men,  then  God  is  not  in  earnest  "  in 
calling  all  men  every  where  to  repent ;"  for  what  good  could  repent- 
ance do  those,  for  whom  Christ  died  not  ? 

6.  If  Christ  died  not  for  all,  then  why  does  he  say,  "  He  is  not 
willing  that  any  should  perish?"  Surely  he  is  willing,  yea  re- 
solved, that  most  men  should  perish  ;  else  he  would  have  died  for 
them  also. 

7.  How  shall  "  God  judge  the  world  by  the  man  Christ  Jesus,"  if 
Christ  did  not  die  for  the  world  ?  Or  how  shall  he  judge  them  ac- 
cording to  the  gospel,  when  there  was  never  any  gospel  or  mercy 
for  them  1 

25.  But,  say  some,  "  If  Christ  died  for  all,  why  are  not  all  saved?" 
I  answer,  "  Because  they  beheve  not  in  the  name  of  the  only  be- 
gotten Son  of  God."  Because  God  "  called,  and  they  refused  to 
answer  ;  he  stretched  out  his  hand,  and  they  regarded  not ;  he  coun- 
selled them,  but  they  would  hear  none  of  his  counsels;"  he  reproved 
them,  but  they  set  at  naught  all  his  reproofs ;  they  followed  after 
lying  vanities,  and  forsook  their  own  mercies  ;"  they  "  denied  the 
Lord  that  bought  them,  and  so  brought  upon  themselves  swift  de- 
struction ;"  and  "  because  they  received  not  the  love  of  the  truth, 
that  they  might  be  saved,  therefore  (if  you  would  know  wherefore) 
God  gave  them  up  to  believe  a  lie,"  and  to  be  damnecf.  "  How 
often"  (saith  our  Lord)  "  would  1  have  gathered  you  together,  and 
ye  Avould  not !"  Ye  tcould  not.  Here  is  the  plain  reason  why  all 
men  are  not  saved.  For  God  promiseth  no  man  salvation,  whether 
he  Avill  or  not.  But  leaveth  them  to  everlasting  destruction,  who 
will  not  believe  and  obey  the  gospel. 

26.  "  Oh,  then  you  are  an  Arminian  !  You  are  a  Free-wilier  ! 
You  hold  free-will  in  man  !" 

I  hold  nothing  but  what  the  Scripture  saith ;  and  that  you  shall 
give  leave  to  hold.  I  do  not  hold,  that  any  man  has  any  will  or 
power  of  himself,  to  do  any  thing  that  is  good  ;  but  by  the  grace  of 
God  we  may  do  all  things.  1  have  already  shown,  he  hath  given 
(yhrist  for  all  men.  And  "  he  who  spared  not  his  own  Son,  but  de- 
livered him  up  for  us  all,  how  shall  he  not  with  him  freely  give  us  all 
.ihingsl"  And  what  man  knoweth  not,  that,  if  he  make  use  of  all 
the  will  and  power  God  hath  given  him,  God  will  double  his  talentj 
and  give  him  more  ?  If  any,  therefore,  desire  to  have  more,  let  hiin 
liiithfully  improve  what  he  has.  Likewise  what  man  is  he,  who  doth 
iiot  know  that  he  is  not  condemned,  for  not  doing  what  he  could  not 
do,  but  for  leaving  undone  what  he  could  have  done  if  he  would.  Let 
any  man  deny  it  if  he  can. 

27.  "  What  then,  may  all  men  be  saved  if  they  will  ?' 

Before  I  answer  this  question  directly,  I  shall  show,  that  those 


CONCERNING  PREDESTINATION,  &C.  429 

who  ask  it,  are  themselves  compelled  to  grant  as  much  freedom  of 
will  as  we  desire  to  plead  for. 

For,  1.  The  Assembly  of  Divines,  in  their  Confession  of  Faith,  c. 
9,  do  expressly  say,  "  God  hath  endowed  the  will  of  man  with  that 
natural  hberty,  that  is  neither  forced,  nor  by  any  absolute  necessity 
determined  to  do  good  or  evil."  2.  Mr.  Baxter,  in  the  preface 
of  his  Call  to  the  Unconverted,  says,  that  Calvin  as  well  as  Jlrminius 
held  free-mil,  and  that  "no  man  of  brains  denieth,  that  man  hath  a 
will  that  is  naturally  free  ;  it  is  free  from  violence,  it  is  a  self-deter- 
mining principle."  Sure  here  is  as  much  said  for  free-will,  as  any 
man  need  to  say,  and  perhaps  more.     For, 

The  difference  between  us,  is  this.  They  say,  Man  hath  a  will 
which  is  naturally  free.  We  say,  JMan  hath  this  freedom  of  will,  not 
naturally,  but  by  grace. 

We  believe,  that  in  the  moment  Adam  fell,  he  had  no  freedom  of 
will  left ;  but  that  God,  when  of  his  own  free-grace  he  gave  the 
promise  of  a  Saviour  to  him  and  his  posterity,  graciously  re- 
stored to  mankind  a  liberty  and  power  to  accept  of  proffered  salva- 
tion. And,  in  all  this,  man's  boasting  is  excluded  ;  the  whole  of  that 
which  is  good  in  him,  even  from  the  first  motion  of  his  will,  being  of 
grace  and  not  of  nature.  And  now  we  come  directly  to  the  ques- 
tion. Whether  all  men  may  be  saved  if  they  will  ? 

28.  To  those  who  have  considered  what  has  been  premised,  I  an- 
swer, 1.  What  should  hinder  them  if  they  be  willing'?  For,  2.  God 
is  not  willing  that  any  should  perish  ;  yea,  3.  He  is  wiUing  that  all 
men  should  be  saved.  And  Christ  is  willing ;  for  he  came  not  to 
judge  the  world,  but  to  save  the  world.  And  how  did  he  weep  over 
Jerusalem  !  How  often  would  he  have  gathered  them  together, 
even  as  a  hen  gathereth  her  chickens  under  her  wings,  but  they 
would  not !  And  now,  what  hinders  man's  salvation,  but  that  same, 
They  would  not? 

29.  They  would  not,  they  will  not  come  at  Christ's  call,  and 
hearken  to  his  reproof,  and  wait  for  his  counsels,  and  receive  power 
from  on  high  to  live  to  him  who  died  for  them,  walking  in  all  his 
commandments  and  ordinances  blameless,  and  following  him 
whithersoever  he  goeth.  This  way  is  so  narrow  that  few  care  to 
walk  therein  ;  and,  therefore,  they  are  not  saved,  even  because  they 
reject  the  counsel  of  God  against  themselves.  They  choose  death ; 
therefore  they  perish  everlastingly. 


A  DIALOGUE 


BETWEEN  A 


PREDESTINARIAN  AND  HIS  FRIEND. 


Out  of  thine  own  Mnvth  I 


TO  ALL  PREDESTINARIANS. 

1.  I  AM  informed  some  of  you  have  said  that  the  following  quo- 
tations are  false  ;  that  these  words  were  not  spoken  by  these  authors : 
others,  that  they  were  not  spoken  in  this  sense  :  and  others,  that 
neither  you  yourself,  nor  any  true  Predestinarian  ever  did,  or  ever 
would  speak  so. 

2.  My  friends,  the  authors  here  quoted  are  well  known,  in  whom 
you  may  read  the  words  with  your  own  eyes.  And  you  who  have 
read  them  know  in  your  own  consciences,  they  were  spoken  in  this 
sense,  and  no  other ;  nay,  that  this  sense  of  them  is  professedly  de- 
fended, throughout  the  whole  treatises  from  whence  they  are  taken. 

3.  But  be  this  as  it  may,  do  you  indeed  say,  JVo  true  Predestina- 
rian ever  did  or  would  speak  so  ?  Why  every  true  Predestinarian  must 
speak  so,  and  so  must  yourself  too,  if  you  dare  speak  out,  unless  they 
and  you  renounce  your  fundamental  principle. 

4.  Your  fundamental  principle  is  this,  God  from  eternity  ordained 
whatsoever  should  come  to  pass.  But  from  this  sinirle  position  unde- 
niably follows  every  assertion  hereafter  mentioned  It  remains 
therefore  only  that  you  choose  which  you  please,  (for  one  you  must 
choose,)  of  these  three  things,  either  1.  To  equivocate,  evade  the 
question,  and  to  prevaricate  without  end  :  or,  2.  To  swallow  all 
these  assertions  together,  and  honestly  to  avow  them  :  or,  3.  To 
renounce  them  altogether,  and  believe  in  Christ,  the  Saviour  of  all 


DIALOGUE,  &c. 

Friend.  Sir,  I  have  heard  that  you  make  God  the  author  of  all 
sin,  and  the  destroyer  of  the  greater  part  of  mankind  .without 
mercy. 

Pred.  I  deny  it ;  I  only  say,  *  "  God  did  from  all  eternity  un^ 
changeably  ordain  whatsoever  comes  to  pass." 

*  Assembly's  Catechism,  Chap.  3. 


A  DIALOGUE,  &J1.  43.J 

Pnend.  Do  you  make  no  exception  1 

Pred.  No  surely ;  For  *  "  Nothing  is  more  absurd  than  to  think 
(tuy  thing  at  all  is  done  but  by  the  ordination  of  God." 

Friend.  Do  you  extend  this  to  the  actions  of  men  1 

Pred.  Without  doubt:  f  "  Every  action  and  motion  of  every 
Creature  is  so  governed  by  the  hidden  counsel  of  God,  that  nothing 
can  come  to  pass,  but  what  was  ordained  by  him." 

Friend.   But  what  then  becomes  of  the  wills  of  men  1 

Pred.  I  "  The  wills  of  men  are  so  governed  by  the  will  of  God, 
that  they  are  carried  on  straight  to  the  mark  which  he  has  fore-or- 
<Jained.'' 

Friend.  I  suppose  you  mean  the  permissive  will  of  God  ? 

Pred.  No,  I  mean,  ||  "  All  things  come  to  pass,  by  the  efficacious 
and  irresistible  will  of  God." 

Friend.  Why  then  all  men  must  do  just  what  they  do. 

Pred.  True,  §  "  It  is  impossible  that  any  thing  should  ever  be 
tlone,  but  that  to  which  God  impels  the  will  of  man." 

Friend.  But  does  not  this  imply  the  necessity  of  all  events  1 

Pred.  ^  "  I  will  not  scruple  to  own  that  the  will  of  God  lays  a 
necessity  on  all  things,  and  that  every  thing  that  he  wills,  necessa- 
rily comes  to  pass." 

Friend.  Does  sin  then  necessarily  come  to  pass  1 

Pred.  Undoubtedly.  For  **  "  The  almighty  power  of  God  ex- 
fends  itself  to  the  first  fall,  and  all  other  sins  of  angels  and  men." 

Friend.  I  grant  God  foresaw  the  first  man  would  fall. 

Pred.  Nay,  ft  "  God  not  only  foresaw  that  Adam  would  fall,  but 
also  ordained  that  he  should." 

Friend.  I  know  God  permitted  Adam's  fall. 
■    Pred.  I  tell  you,  ^  "  He  fell  not  only  by  the  permission,  but  also 
by  the  appointment  of  God.     l{||  He  sinned  because  God  so  or- 
dained, because  the  Lord  saw  good." 

Friend.  But  do  not  those  who  differ  from  you,  raise  many  objec- 
tions against  you  as  to  this  point  1 

Pred.  Yes.  ^  "  Those  poisonous  dogs  vomit  out  many  thing* 
against  God.  i  ^  They  deny  that  the  Scripture  says,  God  decreed 
Adam's  fall.  They  say.  He  might  have  chose  either  to  fall  ov  not, 
and  that  God  fore-ordained  only  to  treat  him  according  to  his  desert. 
As  if  God  created  the  noblest  of  all  his  creatures,  without  fore-or- 
daining what  should  become  of  him  !" 

Friend.  Did  God  then  make  Adam  on  purpose  that  he  might  fall  ? 

Pred.  Undoubtedly.  ***  "  God  made  Adam  and  Eve  to  this  very 
purpose  that  they  might  be  tempted  and  led  into  sin.  And  by  force 
of  his  decree,  it  could  not  otherwise  be  but  they  must  sin." 

♦  Calvin's  Institutes,  Book  1.  Chap.  16,  sect.  8.  t  Ibid.  sect.  3.  I  Ibid^  sect. 
8.  II  Dr.  Twiss,  Vindiciae  Gratiae  Protestatis  et  Providentise  Dei.  Eiiilio  Jenso- 

niana,   Pars  III.  p.  19.  §    Dr.  Twiss,  Vindiciae.  Pars  III.  p.  19.  I  Calviii's 

Inst.  b.  3.  c.  24.  sect.  8.  **  Assembly's  Catechism,  c- 5.         tt  Calvin's    nst.  b- 3. 

c.  23-  sect.  7.  H  Calvin   Responsio  ad  Calamnias  Nebulonis  cujusdam  ad  A"Tti- 

culum  primum.  |[||  Calv.  Inst.  b.  3.  c.  24.  sect.  8.  §§  Ibid-  b-  3.  c  23-  sect.  2. 

Til  Ibid',  sect.  7-        ***  Piscator  Disput.  Praedest-  praf.  p.  6. 


432  A  DIALOGUE  BETWEEN 

Friend.  But  do  not  you  ground  God's  decree  on  God's  fore-kipw- 
ledge  rather  than  his  will  ? 

Pred.  No.  *  "  God  foresees  nothing  but  what  he  has  decreedj 
and  his  decree  precedes  his  knowledge." 

Friend.  Well,  this  may  be  truly  termed  ^  horrible  decree. 

Pred.  t "  I  confess  it  is  a  horrible  decree :  yet  no  one  can  deny, 
but  God  foreknew  Adam's  fall,  and  therefore  knew  it,  because  he 
had  ordained  it  so  by  his  own  decree." 

Friend.  Do  you  believe  then  that  God  has  by  his  own  positive 
decree,  not  only  elected  some  men  to  life,  but  also  reprobated  all  the 
rest  1 

Pred.  Most  surely,  if  I  believe  one  I  believe  the  other,  t  "  Many 
indeed  (thinking  to  excuse  God)  own  election,  and  yet  deny  repro- 
bation :  but  this  is  quite  silly  and  childish.  For  without  reproba- 
tion, election  itself  cannot  stand ;  whom  God  passes  by,  those  he 
reprobates." 

Friend.  Pray  explain  what  you  mean  by  election  and  reprobation. 

Pred.  With  all  my  heart.  §  "  All  men  are  not  created  for  the 
Hame  end ;  but  some  are  fore-ordained  to  eternal  life  ;  others  to 
eternal  damnation.  So  according  as  every  man  was  created  for  the 
one  end  or  the  other,  we  say  he  was  elected  or  predestinated  to  life, 
or  reprobated,  i.  e.  predestinated  to  destruction," 

Friend.  Pray  repeat  your  meaning. 

Pred.  II  "God  hath  once  for  all  appointed  by  an  eternal  and  un- 
changeable decree,  to  whom  he  would  give  salvation,  and  whom  he 
would  devote  to  destruction." 

Friend.  Did  God  make  any  man  on  purpose  that  he  might  be 
damned  1 

Pred.  Did  I  not  tell  you  before?^  "  God's  first  constitution  was, 
that  some  should  be  destined  to  eternal  ruin;  and  to  this  end  their 
sins  were  ordained,  and  denial  of  grace  in  order  to  their  sins." 

Friend.  But  is  not  God's  predestinating  men  to  life  or  death 
grounded  on  his  fore-knowledge  ? 

Pred.  **  "  So  the  vulgarthink ;  that  God  as  he  foresees  every  man 
will  deserve,  elects  them  to  life,  or  devotes  them  to  death  and  dam- 
nation." 

Fiiend.  And  do  not  you  think  that  reprobation,  at  least,  is  ground- 
ed on  God's  fore-knowing  men's  sins^ 

Pred.  No  indeed,  ff  "  God  of  his  own  good  pleasure  ordains  that 
many  should  be  born,  who  are  from  the  womb  devoted  to  inevitable 
damnation.  If  any  man  pretend  that  God's  fore-knowledge  lays  them 
under  no  necessity  of  being  damned,  but  rather  that  he  decreed  their 
damnation,  because  he  foreknew  their  wickedness ;  I  grant  that 
God's  fore-knowledge  alone  lays  no  necessity  on  the  creature  ;  but 
eternal  life  and  death  depend  on  the  will  rather  than  the  foreknow- 
ledge of  God.     If  God  only  fore-knew  all  things  that  relate  to  all 

*  Piscat-  Disput.  Pradest.  t  Calv.  Inst.  b.  3.  c.  23.  sect.  7.  t  Ibid.  sect.  I. 

§  Ibid.  c.  21.  sect.  1-  ||  Ibid.  sect.  7.         ^  Zaiichius  de  Natura  Dei.  p.  563,  554. 

**  Calvin  Inst.  b.  3.  c.  22.  sect.  1.     tt  Ibid-  «■  2  3,  sect-  6. 


A    PREDESTlNAniAN   AND    HIS    FBIENTJ.  433 

men,  and  did  not  decree  and  ordain  them  also,  then  it  might  be  in- 
quired whether  or  not  his  tore-knowledge  necessitates  the  thing  fore- 
known. But  seeing  he  therefore  fore-knows  all  things  that  will  come 
to  pass,  becduse  he  has  decreed  they  shall  come  to  pass,  it  is  vain  to 
contend  about  lore-knowledge,  since  it  is  plain  all  things  come  to 
pass  by  God's  positive  decree." 

Friend.  But  if  God  has  positively  decreed  to  damn  the  greater  pari 
of  mankind,  why  does  he  call  upon  them  to  repent  and  be  saved  ? 

Fred.  *  "As  God  has  his  effectual  call,  whereby  he  gives  the  elect 
the  salvation  to  which  he  ordained  them  ;  sj  he  has  his  judgments.- 
towards  the  reprobates,  whereby  he  executes  his  decree  concerning 
them.  As  many,  therefore,  as  he  created  to  live  miserably,  and  tb.eu 
perish  everlastingly;  these,  that  they  may  be  brought  to  the  end  for 
which  they  were  created,  he  sometimes  deprives  of  the  possibility  ot 
hearing  the  word,  and  at  other  times,  by  the  preaching  thereof,  blinds 
and  stupifies  them  the  more." 

Friend.  How  is  this  1  I  say,  if  God  has  created  them  for  never- 
ending  death,  why  does  he  call  to  them  to  turn  and  live  ? 

Pred.  t  "  He  calls  to  them,  that  they  may  be  more  deaf;  he  kin- 
dies  a  light,  that  they  may  be  the  more  blind  :  he  brings  his  doc- 
trine to  them,  that  they  may  be  more  ignorant ;  and  applies  the  re- 
medy to  them,  that  they  may  not  be  healed," 

Friend.  Enough,  enough.  Yet  you  do  not  make  God  the  authoi 
of  sin  ? 

Pred.  No,  certainly.  X  "  God  cannot  be  termed  the  author  of  sin, 
though  he  is  the  cause  of  those  actions  which  are  sins." 

Friend.  How  is  he  the  cause  of  them  then  ] 

Pred.  Two  ways ;  first,  by  his  eternal,  unchangeable  decree  :  se- 
condly, by  his  present,  irresistible  power. 

Friend.  Did  God  then  fore-ordain  the  sins  of  any  man  ? 

Pred.  §  "  Both  the  reprobates  and  the  elect  were  fore-ordained  tv 
Sin,  as  Sin,  that  the  glory  of  God  might  be  declared  thereby,  \\  The 
reprobates,  more  especially,  who  were  predestinated  to  damnation, 
and  the  causes  of  damnation,  and  created  to  that  end  that  they  might 
live  wickedly,  and  be  vessels  full  of  the  dregs  of  sin." 

Friend.     But  surely  the  sins  of  the  elect  were  not  fore-ordained  '. 

Pred.  Yes,  but  they  were,  ^  «  For  we  neither  can  do  more  good 
than  we  do,  nor  less  evil  than  we  do  ;  because  God  from  eternity 
has  precisely  decreed  that  both  the  good  and  the  evil  should  be  so 
done." 

Friend.  I  understand  you,  as  to  God's  decreeing  sin.  But  how  i,s 
his  irresistible  power  noic  concerned  in  the  sins  of  men  ? 

Pred.  **  "  God  is  the  author  of  that  action,  which  is  sinful,  by 
his  irresistible  will  !" 

Friend.  How  do  you  mean  1 

*  Calvin  Tnst.  b-  3.  c  24.  sect,  12,  t  Ibid,  c,  24.  sect,  13.  |  Petri  Martyris  Vermiii 
Com,  in  Roman,  p,  413,  §  Zachius  deNat.  Dei-  p.  555.  ||  Piscator  contra  Taiiffi- 
um-  p-  47.  IT  Piscatoris  Responsio  ad  amicam  duplicationem  Conradi  Vorstii,  p-  17(7. 
*♦  Dr.  Twiss,  pars  III.  p,  21. 

Vol.  9—0  o 


^  134  A    DIALOGUE,    &LC. 

Pred.  *  "  God  procures  adultery,  cursings,  lyings,  f  He  suppiieir 
wicked  men  with  opportunities  of  sinning,  and  inclines  their  hearts 
thereto.  He  blinds,  deceives,  and  seduces  them.  He  by  his  work- 
ing on  their  heart,  bends  and  stirs  them  up  to  do  evil.  And  thus. 
X  Thieves,  nuirderers,  and  other  malefactors  are  God's  instruments, 
which  he  uses  to  execute  what  he  hath  decreed  in  himself" 

Friend.     Do  you  not  then  charge  God  himself  with  sin] 

Pred.  No.  §  "  God  necessitates  them  only  to  the  act  of  sin,  not 
to  the  deformity  of  sin.  Besides.  |1  When  God  makes  angels  or 
men  sin,  he  does  not  sin  himself,  because  he  does  not  break  any  law. 
For  God  is  under  no  law,  and  therefore  cannot  sin." 

Friend.  But  how  does  God  make  angels  or  men  sin  ? 

Pred.  ^  "  The  Devil  and  wicked  men  are  so  held  in  on  every  side 
by  the  hand  of  God  that  they  cannot  conceive,  or  contrive,  or  exe- 
cute any  mischief,  any  farther  than  God  himself  doth  not  only  permit^ 
but  command.  Nor  are  they  only  held  in  fetters,  but  compelled 
also  as  with  a  l^'idle,  to  perform  obedience  to  those  commands." 

Friend.  This  is  true  Turkish  doctrine,  and  ought  so  to  be  ex- 
ploded as  that  used  to  be  in  these  words  : — "  I  do  anathematize  the 
blasphemy  of  Mahomed,  which  saith,  that  God  deceiveth  whom  he 
Avill,  and  whom  he  will  he  leadeth  to  that  which  is  good.  Himseli 
doth  what  he  willeth,  and  is  himself  the  cause  of  all  good  and  evil. 
Fate  and  destiny  govern  all  things."     JYicetus  Saraccnita. 

Pred.  Nay,  our  doctrine  is  more  ancient  than  Mahomed.  It  was 
maintained  by  St.  Augustine. 

Friend.  Augustine  speaks  sometimes  for  it,  and  sometimes  against 
it.  But  all  antiquity  for  the  lirst  four  centuries  is  against  you,  as  is 
the  whole  eastern  church  to  this  day  ;  and  the  Church  of  England, 
both  in  her  catechism,  articles,  and  homilies.  And  so  are  divers  ol 
our  most  holy  martyrs.  Bishop  Hooper  and  Bishop  Latimer  in  parti- 
cular. 

Pred.  But  does  not  antiquity  say,  Judas  was  predestinated  to 
damnation? 

Friend.  Quite  the  contrary.  St.  Chrysostom's  express  words  are  ; 
"  Judas,  my  Beloved,  was  at  first  a  child  of  the  kingdom,  and  heard 
it  said  to  him  with  the  disciples.  Ye  shall  sit  on  twelve  thrones.  But 
afterwards  he  became  the  child  of  hell." 

Pred.  However,  you  will  own  Esau  was  predestinated  to  destruc- 
tion. 

Friend.  Indeed  I  will  not.  Some  of  your  own  writers  believe  he 
was  finally  saved  ;  which  was  the  general  opinion  of  the  ancient  fa- 
thers. And  that  scripture,  Jacob  have  I  loved,  and  Esau  have  I  hated, 
plainly  relates  not  to  their  persons,  but  their  posterities.  But  su})- 
posing  Esau  or  Judas  to  be  damned,  what  is  he  damned  for  1 

Pred.  Without  question  for  unbelief  For  as  we  are  saved  by  faith 
alone,  so  unbelief  is  the  only  damning  sin. 

*  Piscat.  Responsio  ad  Apologiam  Bertii.  |  Pet-  Martyr.  Ver-  Comment,  in  Rom.  p- 
35,  413.  X  Calv.  Inst,  b,  1.  c.  17.  sect.  5.  §  Twiss  Vindicise,  pars  ill-  p.  22.  II  Zuin- 
gUus  i.  Serm.  de  Provid.  c.  5,  6-     IT  C&vU  Inst.  b.  1.  c.  17.  sect.  11- 


THE    CONSKQ,UENCE    PROVED.  43y 

¥riend.  B}'  what  faith  are  you  saved? 

Pred.   By  faith  in  Christ,  who  gave  himself  for  me. 

Friend.  But  did  he  give  himself  for  Esau  and  Judas  1  If  not,  you 
say,  they  are  damned  for  not  helieving  a  lie.  This  consideration  it 
was  which  forced  Archbishop  Usher  to  cry  out,  "  What  would  not 
a  man  flee  unto,  rather  than  yield,  that  Christ  did  not  die  for  the  re- 
probates ;  and  that  none  but  the  elect  had  any  kind  of  title  to  him  : 
and  yet  many  thousands  should  be  bound  in  conscience  to  believe 
that  he  died  for  them,  and  tied  to  accept  him  for  their  Redeemer  and 
Saviour  1  Whereby  they  should  have  believed  that  which  in  itself  is 
most  untrue,  and  laid  hold  of  that  in  which  they  had  no  kind  of  in-, 
terest." 

Pred.  But  what  then  do  you  mean  by  the  words  Election  and 
Reprobation  ? 

Friend.  I  mean  this.  1st.  God  did  decree  from  the  beginning 
to  elect  or  choose  (in  Christ)  all  that  should  believe  to  salvation. 
And  this  decree  proceeds  from  his  own  goodness,  and  is  not  built 
upon  any  goodness  in  the  creature.  2dly.  God  did  from  the  begin- 
ning decree,  to  reprobate  all,  who  should  obstinately  and  finally  con- 
tinue in  unbelief. 

Pred.  What  then  do  you  think  of  absolute  unconditional  election 
and  reprobation  ■? 

Friend.  I  think  it  cannot  be  found  in  holy  Writ,  and  that  it  is  a 
plant  which  bears  dismal  fruit.  An  instance  of  which  we  have  in 
Calvin  himself;  who  confesses  that  he  procured  the  burning  to  death 
of  Michael  Servetus,  a  wise  and  holy  man,  purely  for  differing  from 
bim  ill  opinion,  in  matters  of  religion. 


THE  CONSEQUENCE  PROVED. 


1.  Mr.  Toplady,  a  young,  bold  man,  lately  published  a  pamphlet, 
an  extract  from  which  was  soon  after  printed,  concluding  with  these 
words : 

"  The  sum  of  all  is  this :  one  in  twenty  (suppose)  of  mankind 
are  elected;  nineteen  in  twenty  are  reprobated.  The  elect  shall  be 
saved,  do  what  they  will :  the  reprobate  shall  be  damned,  do  what 
they  can." 

2.  A  great  outcry  has  been  raised  on  that  account,  as  though  this 
was  not  a  fair  state  of  the  case  :  and  it  has  been  vehemently  affirmed, 
that  no  such  consequence  follows  from  the  doctrine  of  absolute  pre- 
destination. 

I  calmly  affirm,  It  is  a  fair  state  of  the  case ;  this  consequence 
does  naturally  and  necessarily  follow  from  the  doctrine  of  absolute 


130  THE  COJS'SEQUEKCE  PROVED. 

predestination,  as  here  stated  and  defended  by  bold  Mr.  Augustus"- 
Toplady. 

Indeed,  I  have  not  leisure  to  consider  the  matter  at  large.  I  can 
only  make  a  few  strictures,  and  leave  the  young  man  to  be  farther 
corrected  by  (one  that  is  full  his  match)  Mr.  Thomas  Olivers. 

3.  "  When  love  is  predicated  of  God,  it  implies,  1.  His  everlast- 
ing vv^ill,  purpose,  and  determination  to  save  his  people."  (Mr.  T.'s 
Tract,  chap.  1.)  I  appeal  to  all  men,  whether  it  is  not  a  natural 
consequence  even  of  this,  that  "  all  these  shall  be  saved,  do  what 
•they  will." 

You  may  say,  "  O,  but  they  will  do  only  what  is  good."  Be  it  so. 
Yet  the  consequence  stands. 

"  Election  signilfies  that  sovereign,  unconditional,  immutable  act  oi 
God,  whereby  he  selected  some  to  be  eternally  saved."  Immutable, 
'mconditional !  From  hence  then  it  undeniably  follows,  "  These 
shall  be  saved,  do  what  they  will." 

"  Predestination,  as  relating  to  the  elect,  is  that  iiTCversible  act 
of  the  divine  will,  whereby  God  tietermined  to  deliver  a  certain  num- 
ber of  men  from  hell."  Ergo,  That  certain  number  shall  infallibly 
be  saved,  do  what  they  will.     Who  can  deny  the  consequence  1 

"  Not  one  of  the  elect  can  perish,  but  they  must  all  necessarily 
be  saved."  (chap.  3.)  Can  any  assert  this,  and  yet  deny  that  con- 
sequence, therefore  all  the  elect  shah  be  saved,  do  what  they  will  ? 
Unless  you  would  say,  it  is  the  proposition  itself,  rather  than  a  con- 
sequence from  it. 

4.  So  much  for  the  former  part  of  the  question  :  let  us  now  con- 
sider the  latter. 

"  Hatred,  ascribed  to  God,  implies  a  resolution  not  to  have  mercy 
on  such  and  such  men.  So  Esau  have  I  hated ;  that  is,  I  did  from 
ah  eternity  determine,  not  to  have  mercy  on  him."  (chap.  1.)  In 
other  words  : 

I  bj-  my  dire  decree  did  seal 

His  fix'd,  unafterable  doom  ; 
Consign'd  his  unborn  soul  to  hell, 

And  damn'd  him  from  his  mother's  womb. 

Well  then,  does  it  not  follow,  by  unavoidable  consequence,  that 
such  and  such  men,  poor,  hated  Esau  in  particular,  "shall  be  damned, 
do  what  they  can  1" 

"Reprobation  denotes  God's  eternal  pretention  of  some  men, 
and  his  predestination  of  them  to  destruction."  And  is  it  possible 
for  them,  by  any  thing  they  can  do,  to  prevent  that  destruction  1 
You  say,  no.  It  follows,  they  "  shall  be  damned,  do  what  they 
can." 

"Predestination,  as  it  regards  the  reprobate,  is  that  immutrblc 
act  of  God's  will,  whereby  he  hath  determined  to  leave  some  men  to 
perish."  And  can  they  avoid  it  by  any  thing  they  do  ?  You  affirm, 
they  cannot.  Again,  therefore  it  follows,  these  "  shall  be  damned, 
do  what  they  can." 

"We  assert,  there  is  a  predestination  oi  particular  persons  to  death: 


TUE  COJ^SEQUENCE  PROVED.  437 

which  death  they  shall  inevitably  undergo."     That  is,  "  They  shall 
be  damned,  do  what  they  can." 

"The  non-elect  were  predestinated  to  eternal  death."  (chap.  2.) 
Ergo,  "  Tlicy  shall  be  damned,  do  what  they  can." 

"  The  condemnation  of  the  reprobate  is  necessary  and  inevitable." 
Surely  I  need  add  no  more  on  this  head.  You  see,  that  "  the  re- 
probate shall  be  damned,  do  what  they  can,"  is  the  whole  burden  ol 
the  song. 

5  Take  only  two  precious  sentences  more,  which  include  the 
%vhole  question. 

"  We  assert,  that  the  number  of  the  elect,  (chap.  4,)  and  also  ot 
the  reprobate,  is  so  fixed  and  determitmte,  that  neither  can  be  aug-^ 
mented  nor  diminished :  and 

"  That  the  decrees  of  election  and  reprobation  are  immutable  and 
irreversible.^^ 

From  each  of  these  assertions,  the  whole  consequence  follows, 
clear  as  the  noon-day  sun.  Therefore,  "  The  elect  shall  be  saved, 
do  what  they  will :  the  reprobate  shall  be  damned,  do  what  they 
can." 

6.  I  add  a  word,  with  regard  to  another  branch  of  this  kind,  cha- 
ritable doctrine. 

Mr.  Toplady  says,  "  God  has  a  positive  will  to  destroy  the  repro- 
bate for  their  sins."  (chap.  1.)  For  their  sins  !  How  can  that  be? 
I  positively  assert.  That  (on  this  scheme)  they  have  no  sins  at  all. 
They  never  had  ;  they  can  have  none.  For  it  cannot  be  a  sin  in  a 
spark  to  rise,  or  in  a  stone  to  fall.  And  the  spark  or  the  stone  is 
not  more  necessarily  determined  either  to  rise  or  to  fall,  than  the 
man  is  to  sin,  to  commit  that  rape,  or  adultery,  or  murder.  For 
•'  God  did,  before  all  time,  determine  and  direct  to  some  particular 
end,  every  person  or  thing,  to  which  he  has  given,  or  is  yet  to  give 
])eing."  God  himself  did  "predestinate  them  to  fill  up  the  measure 
of  their  iniquities:"  such  was  his  sovereign,  irresistible  decree,  be- 
fore the  foundation  of  the  w^orld.  To  fill  up  the  measure  of  their 
iniquities,  that  is,  to  commit  every  act  which  they  committed.  So 
•'  God  decreed  the  Jews  to  be  the  crucifiers  of  Christ,  and  Judas  to 
betray  him."  (chap.  4.)  Whose  fault  was  it  then?  You  plainly 
say,  it  was  not  his  fault,  but  God's.  For  what  was  Judas,  or  ten 
thousand  reprobates  besides  ? .  Could  they  resist  his  decree?  No 
more  than  they  could  pull  the  sun  out  of  the  firmament  of  heaven. 
And  would  God  punish  them  with  everlasting  destruction,  for  not 
pulling  the  sun  out  of  the  firmament  ?  He  might  as  well  do  it  for 
this,  as  for  their  not  doing  what  (on  this  supposition)  was  equally 
impossible.  "  But  they  are  punished  for  their  impenitency,  sin,  and 
"unbelief."  Say  unbelief  and  impenitency ;  but  not  sin.  For 
•'  God  had  predestinated  them  to  continue  in  impenitency  and  un- 
belief. God  had  positively  ordained  them  to  contmue  in  their 
blindness  and  hardness  of  heart."  Therefore  their  not  repenting 
and  believing  was  no  more  a  sin,  than  their  not  pulling  the  sun  from 
heaver. 

Oo3 


438  the:  consequence  proved. 

7.  Indeed  Mr.  T.  himself  owns,  "  The  sins  of  the  reprobate  were 

isot  the  cause  of  their  being  passed  by ;  but  merely  and  entirely  the 
sovereign  will  and  determinating  pleasure  of  God." 

"  O,  but  their  sin  was  the  cause  of  their  damnalion,  though  not  ol 
^\it\v prelerition  ;^''  that  is,  God  determined  they  should  live  and  die  in 
their  sins,  that  he  might  afterwards  damn  them  ! 

Was  ever  any  thing  like  this  ?  Yes,  I  have  read  something  like  it 
When  Tiberius  had  determined  to  destroy  Sejanus  and  all  his  family. 
as  it  was  unlawful  to  put  a  virgin  to  death,  what  could  be  done  with 
his  daughter,  a  child  of  nine  years  old  1  Why,  the  hangman  wa? 
ordered  first  to  dejloiver,  and  then  to  strangle  her  !  Yet  even  good 
Tiberius  did  not  order  her  to  be  strangled,  "  Because  she  had  been 
deflowered  !"  If  so,  it  had  been  a  parallel  case :  it  had  been  just 
what  is  here  affirmed  of  the  Most  High. 

8,  One  word  more.  "  I  will  obviate,"  says  Mr.  T.  "  a  fallacious 
objection.  How  is  reprobation  reconcileable  with  the  doctrine  of  a 
future  judgment  1  There  needs  no  pains  to  reconcile  these  two.'" 
No  pains  !  Indeed  there  does  :  more  pains  than  all  the  men  upoii 
earth,  or  all  the  devils  in  hell  will  ever  be  able  to  take.  But  go  on. 
"In  the  last  day,  Christ  will  pass  sentence  on  the  non-elect.  1. 
Not  for  having  done  what  they  could  not  help,  but,  2.  For  their  wil- 
ful ignorance  of  divine  things;  3.  For  their  o6sima/e  unbelief;  4.  For 
fheir  omissions  of  moral  duty ;  and,  5.  For  their  repeated  iniquities  and 
transgressions.^^ 

He  will  condemn  them,  1 .  "  Not  for  having  done  what  they  could 
not  help."  1  say,  yes  ;  for  having  sinned  against  God  to  their  lives' 
end.  But  this  they  could  not  help.  He  had  himself  decreed  it 
He  had  determined,  they  should  continue  impenitent.  2.  "  Foj 
their  7vilful  ignorance  of  divine  things."  No.  Their  ignorance  of 
God,  and  the  things  of  God,  was  not  wilful,  was  not  originally  owing 
to  their  own  will,  but  to  the  sovereign  will  of  God.  His  will,  not 
theirs,  was  the  primary  cause  of  their  continuing  in  that  ignorance. 
3.  "  For  their  obstinate  unbelief ."  No  :  how  can  it  be  termed  obsti- 
nate, when  they  never  had  a  possibility  of  removing  it]  When  God 
had  absolutely  decreed,  before  they  were  born,  that  they  should  live 
and  die  therein  1  4.  "  For  their  omissions  of  moral  duty  ;"  that  is,  for 
not  loving  God  and  their  neighbour,  which  is  the  sum  of  the  moral 
Jaw.  Was  it  then  ever  in  their  power  to  love  God  and  their  neighbour  1 
No  :  no  more  than  to  touch  heaven  with  their  hand.  Had  not  God 
himself  unalterably  decreed,  that  they  should  not  love  either  God  oj- 
man  1  If,  therefore,  they  are  condemned  for  this,  they  are  condemned 
for  what  they  never  could  help.  5.  "  For  their  repeated  iniquities 
and  transgressions.'^^  And  was  it  ever  in  their  power  to  help  these  % 
Were  they  not  predestinated  thereto  before  the  foundation  of  tlie 
world  ?  How  then  can  the  judge  of  all  the  earth  consign  them  to 
everlasting  fire,  for  what  was,  in  effect,  his  own  act  and  deed  1 

I  apprehend  then  this  is  no  fallacious  objection  :  but  a  solid  and 
weighty  one  ;  and  defy  any  man  living,  who  asserts  the  unconditionaJ 
decree  of  reprobation  or  preterition  (just  the  same  in  effect)- to  r*>- 


' 


SERIOUS    THOUGHTS,   Lc.  439^ 

concile  this  with  the  scriptural  doctrine  of  a  future  judgment.  I  say, 
again,  I  defy  any  man  on  earth  to  show,  how,  on  this  scheme,  God 
can  judge  the  icorld  in  righteoiisness. 


SERIOUS  THOUGHTS 

UPON    THE 

PERSEVERANCE  OF  THE  SAINTS. 


1.  MANY  large  volumes  have  been  already  published  on  this  im- 
portant subject.  But  the  very  length  of  them  makes  them  hard  to 
be  understood,  or  even  purchased,  by  common  readers.  A  short, 
plain  treatise  on  this  head,  is  what  serious  men  have  long  desired, 
and  what  is  here  offered  to  those  whom  God  has  endowed  with  love 
and  meekness  of  wisdom. 

2.  By  the  Saints,  lunderstand,  Those  who  are  holy  or  righteous,, 
in  the  judgment  of  God  himself :  those  who  are  endued  with  the  faith 
that  purifies  the  heart,  that  produces  a  good  conscience  :  those  who 
are  grafted  into  the  good  Olive-tree,  the  spiritual,  invisible  church  : 
those  who  are  branches  of  the  true  Vine,  of  whom  Christ  says,  "  I 
am  the  Vine,  ye  are  the  branches :"  those  who  so  effectually  know 
Christ,  as  by  that  knowledge  to  have  escaped  the  pollutions  of  the 
world ;  those  who  see  the  hght  of  the  glory  of  God  in  the  face  of 
Jesus  Christ,  and  who  have  been  made  partakers  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
of  the  witness  and  fruits  of  the  Spirit :  those  who  live  by  faith  in  the 
Son  of  God  ;  those  who  are  sanctified  by  the  blood  of  the  covenant : 
those  to  whom  all,  or  any  of  these  characters  belong,  I  mean  by  the 
term  Saints. 

3.  Can  any  of  these  fall  away  1  ByfalUng  away,  we  mean,  not 
barely  falling  into  sin.  This,  it  is  granted,  they  may.  But  can  they 
fall  totally  ?  Can  any  of  these  so  fall  from  God,  as  to  perish  ever- 
lastingly 1 

4.  I  am  sensible,  either  side  of  this  question  is  attended  with  great 
•liificulties :  such  as  reason  alone  could  never  remove.  Therefore' 
to  the  law  and  to  the  testimony.  Let  the  living  oracles  decide  :  and 
if  these  speak  for  us,  we  neither  seek  nor  want  farther  witness. 

,  .  o.  On  this  authority,  I  believe  a  Saint  may  fall  away  ;  that  one 
who  is  holy  or  righteous  in  the  judgment  of  God  himself,  may  never- 
theless so  fall  from  God,  as  to  perish  everlastingly. 

I.  For  thus  saith  the  Lord,  "  When  the  righteous  turneth  away 
fvom  his  righteousness,  and  committeth  iniquity, — in  his  trespass 
that  he  hath  trespassed,  and  in  his  sin  that  he  hath  sinned,  in  them, 
^hail  he  die."  Ezek.  xviii.  24. 


440  SERIOUS    THOUGHTS    UPON    THE 

That  this  is  to  be  understood  of  eternal  death,  appears  from  the 
26th  verse  :  "  When  a  righteous  man  turneth  away  from  his  right- 
eousness, and  cominitteth  iniquity,  and  dieth  in  them,  [here  is  tempo- 
ral death']  for  his  iniquity  that  he  hath  done,  he  shall  die :"  here  is  deatli 
eternal. 

It  appears  farther,  from  the  whole  scope  of  the  chapter,  which  is 
to  prove,  "  The  soul  that  sinneth,  it  shall  die,"  ver.  4.  If  you  say. 
"  The  soul  here  meeins  the  body  :"  I  answer,  that  will  die  whether 
you  sin  or  not. 

6.  Again,  thus  saith  the  Lord,  "  When  I  shall  say  to  the  righteous, 
that  he  shall  surely  live  :  if  he  trust  to  his  own  righteousness,"  [yea, 
or  to  that  promise  as  absolute  and  unconditional]  "  and  committeth 
iniquity,  all  his  righteousness  shall  not  be  remembered;  but  for  the 
iniquity  that  he  hath  committed  shall  he  die."  chap,  xxxiii.  13. 

Again,  "  When  the  righteous  turneth  trom  his  righteousness  and 
committeth  iniquity,  he  shall  even  die  thereby,"  ver.  18.  Therefore; 
one  who  is  holy  and  righteous  in  the  judgment  of  God  himself,  may 
yet  so  fall  as  to  perish  everlastingly. 

7.  But  how  is  this  consistent  with  what  God  declared  elsewhere, 
'•'  If  his  children  forsake  my  law,  and  walk  not  in  my  judgments, — 
I  will  visit  their  offences  with  the  rod,  and  their  sin  with  scourges. 
Nevertheless,  my  loving  kindness  will  I  not  utterly  take  from  him, 
nor  suffer  my  truth  to  fail.  My  covenant  will  I  not  break,  nor  alter 
the  thing  that  is  gone  out  of  my  lips  ;  I  have  sworn  once  by  my  holi- 
ness, that  1  will  not  fail  David."  Psahn  Ixxxix.  31 — 34. 

I  answer,  there  is  no  manner  of  inconsistency  between  the  one 
declaration  and  the  other.  The  prophet  declares  the  just  judgment 
of  God,  against  every  righteous  man  who  falls  from  his  righteousness. 
The  Psalmist  declares,  "The  old  loving  kindnesses  which  God 
sware  unto  David  in  his  truth.  I  have  found,"  saith  he,  "  David  my 
servant ;  with  my  holy  oil  have  I  anointed  him.  My  hand  shall  hold 
him  fast,  and  my  arm  shall  strengthen  him. — His  seed  also  will  I 
make  to  endure  for  ever,  and  his  throne  as  the  days  of  heaven.  But 
if  his  children  forsake  my  law,  and  walk  not  in  my  judgments. — - 
Nevertheless  my  loving  kindness  will  I  not  utterly  take  from  him, 
nor  suffer  my  truth  to  fail.  My  covenant  will  I  not  break.  I  will 
not  fail  David.  His  seed  shall  endure  for  ever,  and  his  throne  as  the 
sun  before  me,"  ver.  21,  22,  30,  31. 

May  not  every  man  see,  That  the  covenant  here  spoken  of,  relates 
wholly  to  David  and  his  seed,  or  children  ?  Where  then  is  the  incon- 
sistency between  the  most  absolute  promise  made  to  a  particular 
family,  and  that  solemn  account  which  God  has  here  given  of  his 
way  of  dealing  with  mankind  ? 

Besides  the  very  covenant  mentioned  in  these  words  is  not  absolute, 
but  conditional.  The  condition  of  repentance,  in  case  of  forsaking 
God's  law,  was  implied,  though  not  expressed.  And  so  strongly  im- 
plied, that  this  condition  faihng,  not  being  performed,  God  did  also 
fail  David.  He  did  alter  the  thing  that  had  gone  out  of  his  lips,  and 
yet  without  any  impeachment,  of  his  truth.     He  "  abhorred  and 


PEUSEVEnAiTCE    OF    THE    SAINTS.  44t 

ibfsook  his  anointed,  the  seed  of  David,  whose  throne  [if  they  had 
repented]  should  have  heen  as  the  days  of  heaven,"  ver.  37.  He  did 
"  break  the  covenant  of  his  servant,  and  cast  his  crown  to  the 
ground,"  ver.  38.  So  vainly  are  these  words  of  the  Psalmist  brought 
to  contradict  the  plain,  full  testimony  of  the  prophet. 

8.  Nor  is  there  any  contradiction  between  this  testimony  of  God 
by  EzekieJ,  and  those  words  which  he  spake  by  Jeremiah  :  "I  have 
loved  thee  with  an  everlasting  love  ;  therefore  with  loving  kindness 
have  I  drawn  thee."  For,  do  these  words  assert,  That  no  righteous 
man  ever  turns  from  his  righteousness  1  No  such  thing.  They  do 
not  touch  the  question,  but  simply  declare  God's  love  to  the  Jewish 
church.  To  see  this  in  the  clearest  light,  you  need  only  read  over 
the  whole  sentence.  "  At  the  same  time,  saith  the  Lord,  I  will  be 
the  God  of  all  the  families  of  Israel,  and  they  shall  be  my  people." 
"  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  the  people  which  were  left  of  the  sword, 
found  grace  in  the  wilderness,  even  Israel,  when  I  caused  him  to  rest.'" 
"  The  Lord  hath  appeared  of  old  unto  me,"  saith  the  prophet,  speak- 
ing in  the  person  of  Israel,  saying,  "  I  have  loved  thee  with  an  ever- 
lasting love,  therefore  with  loving  kindness  have  I  drawn  thee. 
Again,  I  will  build  thee,  and  thou  shalt  be  built,  O  virgin  of  Israel." 
ch.  xxxi.  ver.  1 — 4. 

Suffer  me  here  to  observe  once  for  all,  a  fallacy  which  is  con- 
stantly used,  by  almost  all  writers  on  this  point.  They  perpetually 
beg  the  question  by  applying  to  particular  persons,  assertions,  or 
prophecies,  which  relate  only  to  the  church  in  general,  and  some  of 
them  only  to  the  Jev/ish  church  and  nation,  as  distinguished  from  air 
other  people. 

If  you  say,  "  But  it  was  particularly  revealed  to  me,  that  God  had 
loved  me  with  an  everlasting  love :"  I  answer,  suppose  it  was,  (which 
might  bear  a  dispute,)  it  proves  no  more,  at  the  most,  than  that  you 
in  particular  shall  persevere  :  but  does  not  affect  the  general  ques- 
tion, whether  others  shall,  or  shall  not  ? 

9.  Secondly,  one  who  is  endued  with  the  faith  that  purifies  the 
heart,  that  produces  a  good  conscience,  may  nevertheless  so  fall 
from  God,  as  to  perish  everlastingly. 

For  thus  saith  the  inspired  apostle,  "War  a  good  warfare,  hold- 
ing faith  and  a  good  conscience,  which  some  having  put  away,  con- 
cerning faith  have  made  shipwreck."  1  Tim.  i.  18,  19. 

Observe,  1.  These  men  (such  as  Hymeneus  and  Alexander)  had 
once  the  faith  that  purifies  the  heart,  that  produces  a  good  con- 
science :  this  they  once  had,  or  they  could  not  have  put  it  away. 

Observe,  2.  They  made  shipwreck  of  the  faith,  which  necessarily 
implies  the  total  and  final  loss  of  it.  For  a  vessel  once  wrecked  can 
never  be  recovered.     It  is  totally  and  finally  lost. 

And  the  Apostle  himself,  in  his  second  epistle  to  Timothy,  men- 
tions one  of  these  two  as  irrecoverably  lost.  "  Alexander,  says  he, 
did  me  much  evil :  The  Lord  shall  reward  him  according  to  his 
works."  2  Tim.  iv.  14. 

Therefore,  one  who  is  endued  with  the  faith  that  purifies  the  heart, 


442  SERIOUS   THOUGHTS   UPON   THE 

that  produces  a  good  conscience,  may  nevertheless  so  fall  from  God. 
as  to  perish  everlastingly. 

10.  But  how  can  this  be  reconciled  with  the  words  of  our  Lord, 
'•'  He  that  believeth  shall  be  saved?' 

Do  you  think  these  words  mean,  He  that  believeth  at  this  moment, 
shall  certainly  and  inevitably  be  saved?  If  this  interpretation  be 
good,  then  by  all  the  rules  of  speech,  the  other  part  of  the  sentence, 
must  mean.  He  that  does  not  believe  at  this  moment  shall  certainly 
and  inevitably  be  damned.  Therefore  that  interpretation  cannot  be 
good.  The  plain  meaning  then  of  the  whole  sentence  is,  He  that 
believeth,  if  he  continue  in  faith,  shall  be  saved ;  he  that  believeth  not, 
if  he  continue  in  unbelief,  shall  be  damned. 

11.  "  But  does  not  Christ  say  elsewhere,  '  He  that  believeth,  hath 
everlasting  life  V  John  iii.  36.  And  '  He  that  believeth  on  him  that 
sent  me,  hath  everlasting  life,  and  shall  not  come  into  condemna- 
tion, but  is  passed  from  death  unto  life  ]'  "  ch.  v.  ver.  24. 

I  answer,  1.  The  love  of  God  is  everlasting  life.  It  is  in  substance 
the  life  of  heaven.  Now  every  one  that  believes,  loves  God ;  and 
therefore  hath  everlasting  life.  2.  Every  "one  that  believes  is 
therefore  passed  from  death,  spiritual  death,  unto  life  ;  and,  3.  Shall 
not  come  into  condemnation,  if  he  endureth  in  the  faith  unto  the 
end  :  accoi'ding  to  our  Lord's  own  words,  "  He  that  endureth  to  the 
end,  shall  be  saved  :"  and,  "Verily  I  say  unto  you,  if  a  man  keep 
my  saying,  he  shall  never  see  death."  John  viii.  ol. 

12.  Thirdly,  Those  who  are  grafted  into  the  good  olive-tree,  the 
spiritual,  invisible  church,  may  nevertheless  so  fall  from  God,  as  to 
perish  everlastingly.  For  thus  saith  the  apostle,  "  Some  of  the 
branches  are  broken  off,  and  thou  art  grafted  in  among  them,  and 
with  them  partakest  of  the  root  and  fatness  of  the  olive-tree.  Be 
not  high-minded,  but  fear:  if  God  spared  not  the  natural  branches, 
take  heed  lest  he  spare  not  thee.  Behold  the  goodness  and  severity 
of  God  !  on  them  which  fell  severity;  but  toward  thee  goodness,  if 
thou  continue  in  his  goodness ;  ^otherwise  thou  shalt  be  cut  off." 
Rom.  xi.  20 — 22.  We  may  observe  here,  1.  The  persons  spoken 
to,  were  actually  grafted  into  the  ohve-tree. 

2.  This  olive-tree  is  not  barely  the  outward,  visible  church;  but 
the  invisible,  consisting  of  holy  believers.  So  the  text :  "  If  the 
first  fruits  be  holy,  the  lump  is  holy  ;  and  if  the  root  be  holy,  so  are 
the  branches.  And  because  of  unbehef  they  were  broken  off,  and 
thou  standest  by  faith.*' 

3.  These  holy  believers  were  still  liable  to  be  cut  off  from  the  in- 
visible church,  into  which  they  were  then  grafted  : 

4.  Here  is  not  the  least  intimation  of  those  who  were  so  cut  off, 
being  ever  grafted  in  again.  Therefore,  those  who  are  grafted  into 
the  good  Olive-tree,  the  spiritual,  invisible  church,  may  nevertheless 
so  fall  from  God,  as  to  perish  everlastingly. 

13.  "  But  how  does  this  agree  with  the  29th  verse,  '  The  gifts  and 
v^alling  of  God  are  without  repentance  V  " 

The  precedmg  verse  shows :  "  As  touching  the  election,"  (the  un- 


TERSEVERANCE   OP   THE   SAINTS.  443 

conditional  election  of  the  Jewish  nation,)  "  they  are  beloved  for  the 
father's  sake :"  for  the  sake  of  their  forefathers.  It  follows,  (in 
proof  of  this,  that  "  they  are  beloved  for  the  father's  sake,'')  that 
God  has  still  blessings  in  store  for  the  Jewish  nation,  "  For  the  gifts 
and  calUngs  ot  God  are  without  repentance  :"  for  God  doth  not  re- 
pent of  any  blessings  he  hath  given  them,  or  any  privileges  he  hath 
called  them  to.  The  words  here  referred  to,  were  originally  spoken 
with  a  peculiar  regard  to  these  national  blessings.  "  God  is  not  a 
man,  that  he  should  lie ;  neither  the  son  of  man  that  he  should  re- 
pent." Numb,  xxiii.  19. 

1 4.  "  But  do  not  you  hereby  make  God  changeable  ?"  Whereas 
"with  him  is  no  variableness,  neither  shadow  of  turning  1"  By  no 
means.  God  is  unchangeably  holy.  Therefore  he  always  loveth 
righteousness  and  hateth  iniquity.  He  is  unchangeably  good. 
Therefore  he  pardoneth  all  that  "  repent  and  believe  the  gospel.*' 
And  he  is  unchangeably  just ;  therefore  he  "  rewardeth  every  man 
according  to  his  works."  But  all  this  hinders  not  his  resisting,  when 
they  are  proud,  those  to  whom  he  gave  grace  when  they  were  hum- 
ble. Nay,  his  vmchangeableness  itself  requires,  that  if  they  grow 
high-minded,  God  should  cut  them  off:  that  there  should  be  a  pro- 
portionable change,  in  all  the  divine  dispensations  toward  thera. 

15.  "  But  how  then  is  God  faithful  1"  I  answer,  in  fulfilling  every 
promise  which  he  hath  made,  to  all  to  whom  it  is  made,  all  who  fulfil 
the  condition  of  that  promise.  More  particularly,  1st.  "God  is 
faithful,  in  that  he  will  not  suffer  you  to  be  tempted  above  that  you 
are  able  to  bear."  1  Cor.  x.  13.  2d.  "The  Lord  is  faithful,  to  es- 
tablish and  keep  you  from  evil,"  2  Thess.  iii.  2.  (if  you  put  your 
trust  in  him,)  from  all  the  evil  which  you  might  otherwise  suffer, 
through  "  unreasonable  and  wicked  njen."  3.  "  Quench  not  the 
Spirit ;  hold  fast  that  which  is  good  ;  abstain  from  all  appearance  of 
evil :"  and  your  "  whole  spirit,  soul,  and  body,  shall  be  preserved 
blameless,  unto  the  coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Faithful  is  he 
who  calleth  you,  who  also  will  do  it."  1  Thess.  v.  19,  &c.  4.  Be 
not  disobedient  unto  the  heavenly  calUng  ;  and  "  God  is  faithful  by 
whom  ye  were  called,  to  confirm  you  unto  the  end,  that  ye  may  be 
blameless,  in  the  day  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  1  Cor.  i.  8,  9. 
Yet,  notwithstanding  all  this,  unless  you  fulfil  the  condition,  you  can- 
jiot  attain  the  promise. 

"  Nay,  but  are  not  '  all  the  promises  yea  and  amen  V  "  They 
are.  They  are  firm  as  the  pillars  of  heaven.  Perform  the  condi- 
tion :  and  the  promise  is  sure.     "  Believe  and  thou  shalt  be  saved.'* 

"  But  many  promises  are  absolute  and  unconditional."  In  many, 
the  condition  is  not  expressed.  But  this  does  not  prove  there  is 
7ione  implied.  No  promises  can  be  expressed,  in  a  more  absolute 
form,  than  those  above  cited,  from  the  89th  Psalm.  And  yet  we 
have  seen,  a  condition  was  implied  even  there,  though  none  was  ex- 
pressed. 

16.  ^'But  there  is  no  condition  either  expressed  or  implied,  in 
those  words  of  St.  Paul,  *  I  am  persuaded  that  neither  death,  nor 


144  :5EEIOlTS  THOUGHTS  UPON  THE 

Hfe,  nor  height,  nor  depth,  nor  any  creature,  shall  be  able  to  sepfi> 
rate  us  from  the  love  of  God,  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord/' 
Rom.  viii.  38,  39. 

Suppose  there  is  not,  (which  will  bear  a  dispute,)  yet  what  will 
this  prove  1  Just  thus  much,  that  the  apostle  was  at  that  time  fully 
persuaded  of  his  own  perseverance.  And  I  doubt  not,  but  many 
believers  at  this  day,  have  the  very  same  persuasion,  termed  hi 
Scripture,  the  "  full  assurance  of  hope."  But  this  does  not  prove, 
that  every  believer  shall  persevere  :  any  more  than  that  every  be- 
liever is  thus  fully  persuaded  of  his  perseverance. 

IV.  17.  Fourthly,  those  who  are  branches  of  the  true  Vine,  of 
whom  Christ  says,  "  I  am  the  Vine,  ye  are  the  branches,"  may  ne- 
vertheless so  fall  from  God,  as  to  perish  everlastingly. 

For  thus  saith  our  blessed  Lord  himself,  "  I  am  the  true  Vine, 
and  my  Father  is  the  Husbandman.  Every  branch  in  me  that 
beareth  not  fruit,  he  taketh  it  away."  "  I  am  the  Vine,  ye  are  the 
branches.  If  a  man  abide  not  in  me,  he  is  cast  forth  as  a  branch 
and  is  withered,  and  men  gather  them  and  cast  them  into  the  fire, 
and  they  are  burned." 

Here  we  may  observe,  1.  The  persons  spoken  of,  were  in  Christ; 
branches  of  the  true  Vine. 

2.  Some  of  these  branches  abide  not  in  Christ,  but  the  Father  taketh 
them  away ; 

3.  The  branches  which  abide  not,  are  cast  forth,  cast  out  from 
Christ  and  his  Church : 

4.  They  are  not  only  cast  forth  but  loithered;  consequently  never 
.grafted  in  again.     Nay,        \ 

5.  They  are  not  only  cast  forth  and  withered,  but  also  cast  into  the 
fire.     And, 

6.  They  are  burned.  It  is  not  possible  for  words  more  strongly 
to  declare,  that  even  those  who  are  now  branches  in  the  true  Vine, 
may  yet  so  fall,  as  to  perish  everlastingly. 

18.  By  this  clear,  indisputable  declaration  of  our  Lord,  we  may 
interpret  those  that  might  be  otherwise  liable  to  dispute  :  wherein  it 
is  certain,  whatever  he  meant  beside,  he  did  not  mean  to  contradict 
himself.  For  example,  "  This  is  the  Father's  will,  that  of  all  which 
he  hath  given  me  I  should  lose  nothing."  Most  sure  ;  all  that  God 
hath  given  him,  or,  (as  it  is  expressed  in  the  next  verse,)  "  every 
one  who  believeth  on  him,"  viz.  to  the  end,  he  *'  will  raise  up  at  the 
last  day,"  to  reign  with  him  for  ever. 

Again,  "  I  am  the  living  bread, — If  any  man  eat  of  this  bread  (by 
faith)  he  shall  live  for  ever,"  ver.  51.  True;  if  he  continue  to  eat 
thereof.     And  who  can  doubt  of  it  1 

Again,  "  My  sheep  hear  my  voice,  and  I  know  them,  and  they 
follow  me.  And  I  give  unto  them  eternal  life  ;  and  they  shall 
never  perish,  neither  shall  any  pluck  them  out  of  my  hand,"  John 
X.  27—29. 

In  the  preceding  text,  the  condition  is  only  implied.  In  this  it  h 
plainly  expressed.    They  are  my  sheep,  that  hear  my  voice,  thntfollou 


PEBSEVERANCE  OF  THE  SAINTS.  445 

*T^e  in  all  holiness.    And  "  if  ye  do  these  things,  ye  shall  never  fall.'^ 
None  shall  "  pluck  you  out  of  my  hands." 

Again,  "  Having  loved  his  own  which  were  in  the  world,  he  loved 
them  unto  the  end."  John  xiii.  1 .  Having  loved  his  own,  namely  the 
apostles,  (as  the  very  next  words,  which  were  in  the  world,  evidently 
show,  he  loved  them  unto  the  end  of  his  life,  and  manifested  that  love 
to  the  last. 

19.  Once  more,  "  Holy  Father,  keep  through  thine  own  name 
those  whom  thou  hast  given  me,  that  they  may  be  one,  as  we  are 
one."  ch.  xvii.  11. 

Great  stress  has  been  laid  upon  this  text :  and  it  has  been  hence 
inferred,  that  all  those  whom  the  Father  had  given  him  (a  phrase  fre- 
quently occurring  in  this  chapter)  must  infaUibly  persevere  to  the  end. 

And  yet  in  the  very  next  verse,  our  Lord  himself  declares,  that 
one  of  those  whom  the  Father  had  given  him,  did  not  persevere  unto 
the  end,  but  perished  everlastingly.  His  own  words  are,  *'  Those 
that  thou  gavest  me  I  have  kept,  and  none  of  them  is  lost,  but  the 
son  of  perdition,"  ver.  12.  So  one  even  of  these  was  finally  l(j^tj  a 
demonstration  that  the  phrase  Those  whom  thou  hast  given  me,  signi- 
fies here,  (if  not  in  most  other  places  too,)  the  twelve  apostles  and 
them  only, 

20.  On  this  occasion,  I  cannot  but  observe  another  common  in- 
stance of  begging  the  question,  of  taking  for  granted  what  ought  to 
be  proved :  it  is  usually  laid  down,  as  an  undisputable  truth,  that 
whatever  our  Lord  speaks  to,  or  of,  his  apostles,  is  to  be  applied  to 
all  believers.  But  this  cannot  be  allowed  by  any  who  impartially 
riearch  the  Scriptures.  They  cannot  allow  without  clear  and  parti- 
cular proof,  that  any  of  tliose  texts  which  related  primarily  to  the 
apostles  (as  all  men  grant)  belong  to  any  but  them. 

V.  21.  Fifthly,  those  who  so  effectually  know  Christ,  as  by  that 
knowledge  to  have  escaped  the  pollutions  of  the  world,  may  yet  fall 
back  into  those  pollutions,  and  perish  everlastingly. 

For  thus  saith  the  apostle  Peter,  "If  after  they  have  escaped  the 
])ollutions  of  the  world,  through  the  knowledge  of  the  Lord  and 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  [the  only  possible  way  of  escapiiigthem,]  they 
are  again  entangled  therein  and  overcome,  the  latter  end  is  worse 
with  them  than  the  beginning."  2  Pet.  ii,  20,  21.  "  For  it  had  been 
better  for  them,  not  to  have  known  the  way  of  righteousness,  than 
after  they  have  known  it,  to  turn  from  the  holy  commandment  de- 
livered unto  them." 

That  the  "  knowledge  of  the  way  of  righteousness,"  which  they 
had  attained,  was  an  inward,  experimental  knowledge,  is  evident 
iVom  that  other  expression,  "  They  had  escaped  the  pollutions  of  the 
world  :"  an  expression  parallel  to  that  in  the  preceding  chapter, 
"  Having  escaped  the  corruption  which  is  in  the  world,"  ver.  4.  And 
ill  both  chapters,  this  effect  is  ascribed  to  the  same  cause  :  termed 
in  the  first,  "The  knowledge  of  him  who  hath  called  us,  to  glory 
and  virtue :"  in  the  second,  more  explicitly,  "  The  knowledge  of  the 
Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ." 
Vol.  9.— P  p 


i46  SERIOUS  THOUGHTS  UPON  THE 

And  yet  they  lost  that  experimental  knowledge  of  Christ,  and  tli* 
way  of  righteousness  :  they  fell  back  into  the  same  pollutions  they 
had  escaped  ;  and  were  again  "  entangled  therein  and  overcome." 
"  They  turned  from  the  holy  commandment  delivered  unto  them,'* 
so  that  their  "  latter  end  was  worse  than  their  beginning." 

Therefore,  those  who  effectually  know  Christ,  as  by  that  know- 
ledge  to  have  escaped  the  pollutions  of  the  world,  may  yet  fall  back 
into  those  pollutions  and  perish  everlastingly. 

22.  And  this  is  perfectly  consistent  with  St.  Peter's  words,  in  the 
first  chapter  of  his  former  epistle  :  "  Who  are  kept  by  the  power  of 
God  through  faith  unto  salvation."  Undoubtedly  so  are  all  they  who 
ever  attain  eternal  salvation.  It  is  the  power  of  God  only,  and  not 
our  own,  by  which  we  are  kept  one  day,  or  one  hour. 

VI.  23.  Sixthly,  Those  who  "  see  the  light  of  the  glory  of  God 
in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ,"  and  who  have  been  "  made  partaker? 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  of  the  witness  and  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit ;  may 
nevertheless  so  fall  from  God,  as  to  perish  everlastingly.  For  thus 
satitfc  the  inspired  writer  to  the  Hebrews,  "  It  is  impossible  for  those 
who  were  once  enlightened,  and  have  tasted  of  the  heavenly  gift, 
and  were  made  partakers  of  the  Holy  Ghost, — If  they  fall  away, 
to  renew  them  again  to  repentance ;  seeing  they  crucify  to  them- 
selves the  Son  of  God  afresh,  and  put  him  to  an  open  shame," 
oh.  vi.  4.  6. 

Must  not  every  unprejudiced  person  see,  the  expressions  here 
used  are  so  strong  and  clear,  that  they  cannot,  without  gross  and 
palpable  wresting,  be  understood  of  any  but  true  believers  1 

They  iccre  once  enlightened  :  an  expression  familiar  with  the  apos- 
tle, and  never  by  him  applied  to  any  but  telievers.  So  "The  God 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  give  unto  you  the  Spirit  of  wisdom  and  re- 
velation.— The  eyes  of  your  understanding  being  enlightened,  that 
ye  may  know  what  is  the  hope  of  his  calling — And  what  is  tlie  ex- 
ceeding greatness  of  his  power,  toward  us  that  believe,"  Eph.  i.  17 — 
19.  So  again,  "God  who  commanded  the  light  to  shine  out  of 
darkness,  hath  shined  into  our  hearts,  to  give  the  light  of  the  know- 
ledge of  the  glory  of  God  in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ."  2  Cor.  iv.  6. 
This  is  a  light  which  no  unbelievers  have.  They  are  utter  strangers 
to  such  enlightening.  "  The  god  of  this  world  hath  blinded  the 
minds  of  them  who  believe  not,  lest  the  light  of  the  glorious  gospel 
of  Christ  should  shine  unto  them,"  ver.  4. 

They  had  tasted  of  the  heavenly  gift,  (emphatically  so  called)  and 
were  made  partakers  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  So  St.  Peter  likewise  couples 
them  together  :  "  Be  baptized  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall 
receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  (Acts  ii.  38,)  whereby  the  love 
of  God  was  shed  abroad  in  their  hearts,  with  all  the  other  fruits  of 
the  Spirit.  Yea,  it  is  remarkable  that  our  Lord  himself,  in  his  grand 
commission  to  St.  Paul,  (to  which  the  apostle  probably  alludes  in 
these  words,  comprises  all  these  three  particulars.  Acts  xxvi.  18, 
"  I  send  thee  to  open  their  eyes,  and  to  turn  them  from  darkness  to 
ijght,  and  from  the  power  of  Satan  unto  God,  [here  contracted  into 


PERSEVERANCE    OF    THE   SAINTS.  447 

that  one  expression,  "They  were  enlightened"]  "that  they  may 
receive  forgiveness  of  sins,  (the  heavenly  gift,)  and  an  inheritance 
among  them  who  are  sanctified  ;"  who  are  mside  partakers  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  of  all  the  sanctifying  influences  of  the  Spirit. 

The  expression,  "  They  tasted  of  the  heavenly  gift,"  is  taken  from 
the  Psalmist,  "  Taste  and  see  that  the  Lord  is  good."  Psalm  xxxiv. 
8.  As  if  he  had  said,  be  ye  as  assured  of  his  love,  as  of  any  thing 
you  see  with  your  eyes.  And  let  the  assurance  thereof  be  sweet  to 
your  soul,  as  honey  is  to  your  tongue. 

And  yet  those  who  had  been  thus  enlightened,  had  tasted  this  gift, 
and  been  thus  partakers  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  so  fell  aioay,  that  it  was 
impossible  to  renew  them  again  to  repentance. 

"  But  the  apostle  only  makes  a  supposition.  If  they  shall  fall  aw  ay. ''^ 

I  answer.  The  apostle  makes  no  supposition  at  all.  There  is  no 
*/  in  the  original.  The  words  are,  ^A^wctlov  rm  xttcc^  (pai'lta-S-alxi — xxi 
^otpx7r(irovlx<;.  That  is,  in  plain  English,  [t  is  impossible  to  renew  again 
unto  repentance,  those  who  were  once  enlightened  and  have  fallen  away : 
therefore  they  must  perish  everlastingly. 

24.  "But  if  so,  then  farewell  all  my  comfort." 

Then  your  comfort  depends  upon  a  poor  foundation.  My  com- 
fort stands  not  on  any  opinion,  either  that  a  believer  can,  or  cannot 
fall  away,  not  on  the  remembrance  of  any  thing  wrought  in  me  yes- 
terday;  lint  on  what  IS  to-day :  on  my  p'csmi  knowledge  of  God  in 
Christ,  reconciling  me  to  himself  On  my  7iow  beholding  the  light  of 
the  glory  of  God,  in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ ;  walking  in  the  light, 
as  he  is  in  the  light,  and  having  fellowship  with  the  Father  and  with 
the  Son.  My  comfort  is  that,  through  grace,  I  now  believe  in  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  and  that  his  Spirit  doth  bear  witness  with  my 
spirit,  that  I  am  a  child  of  God.  I  take  comfort  in  this  and  this  only, 
that  I  see  Jesus  at  the  right  hand  of  God :  that  1  personally,  for  myself, 
and  not  for  another,  have  a  hope  full  of  immortality  ;  that  1  feel  the 
love  of  God  shed  abroad  in  my  heart,  being  crucified  to  the  world, 
and  the  world  crucified  to  me.  My  rejoicing  is  this,  the  testimony 
of  my  conscience,  that  in  simplicity  and  godly  sincerity,  not  with 
fleshly  wisdom,  but  by  the  grace  of  God,  I  have  my  conversation  in 
the  world. 

Go  and  find,  if  you  can,  a  more  solid  joy,  a  more  bhssful  comfort, 
on  this  side  heaven.  But  this  comfort  is  not  shaken,  be  that  opinion 
true  or  false;  whether  the  saints  in  general  can  or  cannot  fall.  If 
you  take  up  with  any  comfort  short  of  this,  you  lean  on  the  staflf  of  a 
broken  jeed,  which  not  only  will  not  bear  your  weight,  but  will 
enter  your  hand  and  pierce  you. 

VH.  25.  Seventhly,  Those  who  live  by  faith,  may  yet  fall  from 
God  and  perish  everlastingly. 

For  thus  saith  the  same  inspired  writer,  "  The  just  shall  live  by 
faith  ;  but  if  any  man  draw  back,  my  soul  shall  have  no  pleasure  in 
him."  Heb.  x.  38.  The  just,  the  justified  ^person,  shall  live  by  faith, 
even  now  shall  he  live  the  life  which  is  hid  with  Christ  in  God :  and 
li  he  endure  unto  the  end,  he  shall  live  with  God  for  ever.     But  if 


448  sEurous  THOtfcHTS  tjposr  the 

any  man  drmo  back,  saith  the  Lord,  my  soul  shall  have  no  pleasure  in 
him:  that  is,  I  will  utterly  cast  him  off;  and  accordingly  the  drawingr 
back  here  spoken  of,  is  termed  in  the  verse  immediately  following; 
drawing  back  to  perdition. 

"  But  the  person  supposed  to  draw  back  is  not  the  same  with  him 
who  is  said  to  live  by  faith." 

I  answer,  1 .  Who  is  it  then  1  Can  any  man  draw  back  from  faitb 
who  never  came  to  it  1  But, 

2.  Had  the  text  been  fairly  translated,  there  had  been  no  pretence 
for  this  objection.  For  the  original  runs  thus:  ^o  ^ncott©-  er,  ^trem 
^tio-ijui  V.KI  cotv  v7rc?-ii>^-^lect.  If  o  ^ikc<,s(^.,  the  just  man  that  lives  by  faith 
[so  the  expression  necessarily  implies,  there  being  no  othernowma- 
live  to  the  verb]  draws  back,  my  soul  shall  have  no  pleasure  in  him. 

"  But  the  apostle  adds,  '  We  are  not  of  them  who  draw  back  unto 
perdition.'  "  And  what  will  you  infer  from  thence  1  This  is  so  far 
irom  contradicting  what  has  been  observed  before,  that  it  manitiestly 
confirms  it.  It  is  a  farther  proof,  that  there  are  those  loho  draw  back 
unto  perdition,  although  the  apostle  was  not  of  that  number.  There- 
fore those  who  live  by  faith,  may  yet  fall  from  God  and  perish  ever- 
lastingly. 

26.  "But  does  not  God  say  to  every  one  that  lives  by  faith,  *'  I 
will  never  leave  thee,  nor  forsake  thee  ?' 

The  whole  sentence  runs  thus,  "  Let  your  conversation  be  with- 
out covetousness,  and  be  content  with  such  things  as  ye  have  ;  for 
he  hath  said,  I  will  never  leave  thee  nor  forsake  thee."  Heb.  xiii.  5, 
True  ;  provided  "  your  conversation  be  without  covetousness,  and 
ye  be  content  with  such  things  as  ye  have."  Then  you  may  boldly 
say,  "  The  Lord  is  my  helper,  and  I  will  not  fear  what  man  shall  do 
unto  me." 

Do  you  not  see,  1 .  That  this   promise,  as  here  recited,  relates 
wholly  to  temporal  things  ?  2.  That  even  thus  taken,  it  is  not  abso- 
lute but  conditional :  and,  3.  That  the  condition  is  expressly  men- 
tioned in  the  very  same  sentence  ? 
>  VIII.  27.  Eighthly,  Those  who  are  sanctified  by  the  blood  of  the 

\  covenant,  may  so  fall  from  God  as  to  perish  everlastingly. 
r~  For  thus  again  saith  the  apostle,  "  if  we  sin  wilfully,  after  we 
have  received  the  knowledge  of  the  truth,  there  remaineth  no  more 
sacrifice  for  sin,  but  a  certain  fearful  looking  for  of  judgment  and 
iiery  indignation,  which  shall  devour  the  adversaries.  He  that  de- 
spised Moses'  law  died  without  mercy  under  two  or  three  witnesses. 
Of  how  much  sorer  punishment  shall  he  be  thought  worthy,  who 
hath  trodden  under  foot  the  Son  of  God,  and  hath  counted  the  blood 
of  the  covenant,  wherewith  he  was  sanctified,  an  unholy  thing."  Heb. 
X.  26—29. 

It  is  undeniably  plain,  1.  That  the  person  mentioned  here,  was 
once  sanctified  by  the  blood  of  the  covenant.  2.  That  he  afterwards, 
by  known,  wilful  sin,  trod  under  foot  the  Son  of  God  :  and,  3.  That 
he  hereby  incurred  a  sorer  punishment  than  death,  namely,  death 
everlasting. 


PERSEVERA^fCE    OF    THE    SAINTS,  449 

Therefore,  those  who  are  sanctified  by  the  blood  of  the  covenant, 
may  yet  so  fall  as  to  perish  everlastingly. 

28.  "  What !  Can  the  blood  of  Christ  burn  in  hell  1  Or  can  the 
purchase  of  the  blood  of  Christ  go  thither  ?" 

I  answer, '1.  The  blood  of  Christ  cannot  burn  in  hell,  no  more 
than  it  can  be  spilt  on  the  earth.  The  heavens  must  contain  both 
his  flesh  and  blood,  until  the  restitution  of  all  things.     But, 

2.  If  the  oracles  of  God  are  true,  one  who  was  purchased  by  the 
blood  of  Christ  may  go  thither.  For  he  who  was  sanctified  by  the 
blood  of  Christ,  was  purchased  by  the  blood  of  Christ.  But  one 
who  was  sanctified  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  may  nevertheless  go  to 
hell ;  may  fall  under  that  fiery  indignation,  which  shall  for  ever  de- 
vour the  adversaries. 

29.  "  Can  a  child  of  God  then  go  to  hell?  Or  can  a  man  be  a 
child  of  God  to-day,  and  a  child  of  the  Devil  to-morrow  1  If  God  is  our 
Father  once,  is  he  not  our  Father  always  1"  I  answer, 

1 .  A.  child  of  God,  that  is,  a  true  believer,  (for  he  that  believeth  is 
born  of  God,)  while  hccontinues  a  true  believer,  cannot  go  to  hell. 
But,  2.  If  a  believer  makes  shipwreck  of  the  faith,  he  is  no  longer 
a  child  of  God.  And  then  he  may  go  to  hell,  yea,  and  certainly  will, 
if  he  continues  in  unbelief.  3.  If  a  believer  may  make  shipwreck 
of  the  faith,  then  a  man  who  believes  now,  may  be  an  unbeliever 
some  time  hence ;  yea,  very  possibly,  to-morrow  :  but  if  so,  he  who 
is  a  child  of  God  to-day,  may  be  a  child  of  the  Devil  to-morrow. 
For,  4.  God  is  the  Father  of  them  who  believe,  so  long  as  they  be- 
lieve. But  the  Devil  is  the  father  of  them  that  believe  not,  whether 
they  did  once  believe  or  not. 

30.  The  sum  of  all  is  this.  If  the  Scriptures  are  true,  those  who 
are  holy  or  righteous  in  the  judgment  of  God  himself:  those  who 
are  endued  with  the  faith  that  purifies  the  heart,  that  produces  a  good 
conscience :  those  who  are  grafted  into  the  good  Olive  tree,  the 
spiritual,  invisible  church :  those  who  are  branches  of  the  true  Vine, 
of  whom  Christ  says,  I  am  the  Vine,  ye  are  the  branches  :  those 
who  so  effectually  know  Christ,  as  by  that  knowledge  to  have  es- 
caped the  pollutions  of  the  world :  those  who  see  the  light  of  the 
glory  of  God,  in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  who  have  been  made 
])artakers  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  of  the  witness  and  of  the  fruits  of 
the  Spirit :  those  who  live  by  faith  in  the  Son  of  God  :  those  who 
are  sanctified  by  the  blood  of  the  covenant;  may  nevertheless  so 
fall  from  God,  as  to  perish  everlastingly. 

Therefore,  "  Let  him  who  standeth,  take  heed  lest  he  fall." 


Pp2 


[  450.] 
T  H  O  U  G  H  T  S^ 

t)N    THE 

IMPUTED  KIGHTEOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST. 


1.  A  TRACT  has  lately  been  published  m  my  name,  concerning 
The  Imputed  Righteousness  of  Christ.  This  calls  me  to  explain  my- 
self upon  that  head;  which  I  will  do  with  all  the  clearness  I  can. 
But  I  quarrel  with  no  man  for  thinking  or  speaking  otherwise  than 
I  do  :  I  blame  none  for  using  those  expressions  which  he  believes 
to  be  scriptural.  If  he  quarrels  with  me  for  not  using  them,  at 
least,  not  so  frequently  as  himself,  I  can  only  pity  him,  and  wish 
him  more  of  "the  Mind  which  was  in  Christ." 

2.  The  Righteousness  of  Christ  is  an  expression  which  I  do  not  find 
in  the  Bible.  The  Righteousness  of  God  is  an  expression  which  1  do 
find  there.  I  believe  this  means,  first.  The  M«rcy  of  God,  as  2  Pet, 
i.  1  :  "  Them  that  have  obtained  like  precious  faith  with  us,  through 
the  righteousness  of  God."  How  does  it  appear,  that  the  right- 
eousness of  God  here  means  either  more  or  less  than  his  mercy  1 
Psalm  Ixxi.  15,  &c.  "  My  mouth  shall  show  forth  thy  righteousness 
and  thy  salvation ;"  thy  mercy  in  delivering  me.  "1  will  make 
mention  of  thy  righteousness  only."  "  Thy  righteousness,  O  God, 
is  very  high."  Here  the  righteousness  of  God  is  expressly  men- 
tioned. But  I  will  not  take  upon  me  to  say,  that  it  means  the 
righteousness  or  mercy  of  the  Son,  any  more  than  of  the  Holy 
Ghost. 

3.  I  believe  this  expression  means.  Secondly,  God's  method  of 
justifying  sinners.  So  Rom.  i.  17  :  "  I  am  not  ashamed  of  the  gos- 
pel of  Christ,  for  therein  is  the  righteousness  of  God,  (his  way  ol 
justifying  sinners,)  revealed."  Chap.  iii.  91,  &c.  "Now  the  right- 
eousness of  God  is  manifested  :  even  the  righteousness  of  God.  which 
is  by  faith  :"  (unless  righteousness  here  also  means  m'ercy.)  "  Jesus 
Christ,  whom  God  hath  set  forth  to  be  a  propitiation,  through  faith 
in  his  blood  ;  to  declare  his  righteousness,  for  the  remission  of  sins 
that  are  past :  that  he  might  be  just,  and  yet  the  justifier  of  him 
th^t  beheveth  in  Jesus."  Chap.  x.  3.  "  They  being  ignorant  of 
God's  righteousness,"  his  method  of  justifying  sinners,  "  and  going 
about  to  establish  their  own  righteousness,"  a  method  of  their  own, 
opposite  to  his,  "  have  not  submitted  themselves  unto  the  righteous- 
ness of  God." 

4.  Perhaps  it  has  a  peculiar  meaning  in  2  Cor.  v.  21  :  "He  made 
him  to  be  sin  for  us,  who  knew  no  sin,  that  we  might  be  made  the 
righteousness  of  God,,  in  or  through  him  ;"^  that  we  might  be  justi- 


THOUGHTS  ON  THE  IMPl'TED  RIGHTEOUSNESS   OP  CHRIST.  451 

lied  and  sanctified,  might  receive  the  whole  blessing  of  God  througli 
him. 

5.  And  is  not  this  the  most  natural  meaning  of  Phil.  iii.  8,  9  ? 
"  That  I  may  win  Christ,  and  be  found  in  him,"  grafted  into  the 
true  Vine,  "  not  having  my  own  righteousness,"  the  method  of  jus- 
tification which  I  so  long  chose  for  myself,  "  which  is  of  the  law, 
but  the  righteousness  which  is  of  God,"  the  method  of  justification 
which  God  hath  chosen,  "6y/m</i." 

6.  "But  is  not  Christ  termed,  our  Righteousness  1"  He  is,  Jer. 
xxiii.  6  :  "This  is  the  name  whereby  he  shall  be  called,  The  Lord 
our  Righteousness."  And  is  not  the  plain,  indisputable  meaning  of 
this  ccripture,  He  shall  be  what  he  is  called,  the  sole  purchaser,  the 
sole  meritorious  cause,  both  of  our  justification  and  sanctification  1 

7.  Nearly  related  to  this  is  the  following  text :  1  Cor.  i.  30,  "Jesus 
Christ  is  made  of  God  unto  us  wisdom,  and  righteousness,  and  sanc- 
tification, and  redemption."  And  what  does  this  prove,  but  that  he  is 
made  unto  us  righteousness  or  justification,  just  as  he  is  made  unto 
us  sanctification?  In  what  sense?  He  is  the  sole  author  of  the 
one,  as  well  as  of  the  other,  the  Author  of  our  whole  salvation. 

8.  There  seems  to  be  something  more  implied  in  Rom.  x.  4 ;  does 
it  not  imply  thus  much  :  "  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law,"  not  only  of 
the  Mosaic  dispensation,  but  of  the  law  of  works,  which  was  given 
to  Adam  in  his  original  perfection,  "  for  righteousness  to  every  one 
that  believeth :"  to  the  end  that  every  one  who  believeth  in  him, 
though  he  has  not  kept,  and  cannot  keep  that  law,  may  be  both  ac- 
counted and  made  righteous  ? 

9.  Accordingly,  frequent  mention  is  made  in  Scripture,  of  "  faith 
counted  for  righteousness."  So  Gen.  xv.  6  :  "  He  (Abraham)  be- 
lieved in  the  Lord,  and  he  counted  it  to  him  for  righteousness  :"  a 
text  repeated,  with  but  little  variation,  over  and  over  in  the  New 
Testament.  Rom.  iv.  5  :  "To  him  that  worketh  not,  but  believeth 
on  him  who  justifieth  the  ungodly,  his  faith  is  counted  for  righteous- 
ness." Thus  it  was  that "  Noah  became  heir  of  the  righteousness," 
the  justification,  "  which  is  by  faith."  Heb.  xi.  7.  Thus  also  "  the 
Gentiles,"  when  the  Jews  fell  short,  "  attained  to  righteousness,  even 
the  righteousness  which  is  by  faith."  Rom.  ix.  30.  But  that  ex- 
pression, The  Righteousness  of  Christ,  does  hot  occur  in  any  of  these 
texts. 

10.  It  seems,  righteousness,  in  the  following  texts,  means  neither 
more  nor  less  than  justification.  Gal.  ii.  21  ;  "  If  righteousness 
come  by  the  law,  then  Christ  is  dead  in  vain."  Chap.  iii.  21  ;  "  It 
there  had  been  a  law  which  could  have  given  life,  (spiritual  life,  or  a 
title  to  life  eternal)  then  righteousness  should  have  been  by  the  law." 
Though  some  may  think  it  here  includes  sanctification  also  :  which 
it  appears  to  do.  Rev.  xix.  8  :  "  The  fine  linen  is  the  righteousness 
of  the  saints." 

11."  But  when  St.  Paul  says,  Rom.  v.  18,  '  By  the  righteousness 
of  one,  (called  in  the  following  verse,  the  obedience  of  one,  even 
his  obedience  unto  death,  his  dying  for  us,)  the  free  gift  came,'  does 


452  THOUGHTS  ON  THE  IMPUTED  RIGHTEOUSNESS  OP  CHRIST^ 

he  not  mean  the  righteousness  of  Christ  1"  Undoubtedly  he  does  : 
but  this  is  not  the  question.  We  are  not  inquiring,  what  he  means, 
but  what  he  says.  We  are  all  agreed  as  to  the  meaning,  but  not  as 
to  the  expression.  The  imputing  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  which  I 
still  say,  I  dare  not  insist  upon,  neither  require  any  one  to  use  ;  be- 
cause 1  cannot  find  it  in  the  Bible.  If  any  one  can,  he  has  better 
eyes  than  I :  and  I  wish  he  would  show  me  where  it  is. 

1 2.  Now,  if  by  the  righteousness  of  Christ  we  mean  any  thing 
which  the  Scripture  does  not  mean,  it  is  certain  we  put  darkness  for 
light.  If  we  mean  the  same  which  the  Scripture  means  by  different 
expressions,  why  do  we  prefer  this  expression  to  the  scriptural?  Is 
not  this  correcting  the  wisdom  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  opposing  our 
own  to  the  perfect  knowledge  of  God  ? 

13.  I  am  myself  the  more  sparing  in  the  use  of  it ;  because  it  has 
been  so  frequently  and  so  dreadfully  abused  :  and  because  the  An- 
tinomians  use  it  at  this  day  to  justify  the  grossest  abominations.  And 
it  is  great  pity  those  who  love,  who  preach,  and  follow  after  holiness, 
should,  under  the  notion  of  honouring  Christ,  give  any  countenance 
to  those  who  continually  make  him  the  Minister  of  sin,  and  so  build 
on  his  righteousness,  as  to  live  in  such  ungodliness  and  unrighteous- 
ness as  is  scarcely  named  even  among  the  heathens. 

14.  And  doth  not  this  way  of  speaking  naturally  tend  to  make 
Christ  the  Minister  of  sin  i  For  if  the  very  personal  obedience  of 
Christ  (as  those  expressions  directly  lead  me  to  think,)  be  mine,  the 
moment  I  believe,  can  any  thing  be  added  thereto  1  Does  my  obey- 
ing God  add  any  value  to  the  perfect  obedience  of  Christ  ?  On 
this  scheme  then,  are  not  the  holy  and  unholy  on  the  very  same 
footing  1 

15.  Upon  the  whole,  I  cannot  express  my  thoughts  better,  than  in 
the  words  of  that  good  man,  Mr.  Hervey  :  "  If  people  may  be  safe, 
and  their  inheritance  secure,  without  any  knowledge  of  these  parti- 
cularities, why  should  you  offer  to  puzzle  their  heads  with  a  few  un- 
necessary terms  ?' — "  We  are  not  very  solicitous  as  to  the  credit,  or 
the  use,  of  any  particular  set  of  phrases.  Only  let  men  be  humbled 
as  repenting  criminals,  at  the  Redeemer's  feet ;  let  them  rely  as  de- 
voted pensioners,  on  his  precious  merits  :  and  they  are  undoubted!} 
in  the  way  to  a  blissful  immortality."  Dialogues,  Vol.  I.  p.  43, 
Dublin  edition. 

Dublin,  Apnl  5,  1763. 


I  453 


BLOW  AT  THE  ROOT  5 


OR 


CHRIST  STABBED  IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  HIS  FRlENDg. 


"  Judas,  betrayest  thou  the  Son  of  Man  with  a  Kiss  ?"— Luke  xsii.  46. 


1.  "WITHOUT  holiness  no  man  shall  see  the  Lord,"  shall  sec 
the  face  of  God  in  glory.  Nothing  under  heaven  can  be  more  sure 
than  this :  "  For  the  mouth  of  the  Lord  hath  spoken  it."  And 
though  heaven  and  earth  pass  away,  yet  his  "  word  shall  not  pass 
away."  As  well  therefore  might  God  fall  from  heaven,  as  this  word 
fall  to  the  ground.  No,  it  cannot  be  :  None  shall  live  with  God, 
but  he  that  now  lives  to  God.  None  shall  enjoy  the  glory  of  God  in 
heaven,  but  he  that  bears  the  image  of  God  on  earth.  None  that  is 
not  saved  from  sin  here,  can  be  saved  from  hell  hereafter.  None 
can  see  the  kingdom  of  God  above,  unless  the  kingdom  of  God  be 
in  him  below.  Whosoever  will  reign  with  Christ  in  heaven,  must 
have  Christ  reigning  in  him  on  earth.  He  must  have  "  that  mind 
in  him  which  was  in  Christ,"  enabling  him  "  to  walk  as  Christ  also 
walked." 

2.  And  yet  as  sure  as  this  is,  and  as  clearly  as  it  is  taught  in  every 
part  of  the  Holy  Scripture,  there  is  scarcely  one  among  all  the 
truths  of  God,  which  is  less  received  with  men.  It  was  indeed  ac- 
knowledged in  some  degree,  even  among  the  wiser  heathens.  Some 
among  them  allowed  that  nothing  would  please  God  but  the  sancti 
recessus  mentis^  et  incoctwn  generoso  pectus  honesto :  "  A  virtuous^ 
holy  mind,  and  a  heart  deep  dyed  with  generous  honesty."  But 
though  they  could  not  deny,  yet  how  easily  and  effectually  did  they 
evqde  this  !  They  fancied  something  else  would  do  as  well :  That 
some  rites  or  ceremonies,  some  external  forms,  or  glorious  actions, 
would  supply  the  place  of  inward  holiness.  So  the  famous  Roman 
entitles  to  future  happiness,  not  only  the  good  and  virtuous,  but  all 

"  Ob  palriam  pugnando  vidnera  passos 

"  Qriiqrte  pie  Fates,  et  Phabo  digna  locuti; 

"  hiventas  aut  qui  vitam  excoluere  per  artes." 

So,  to  fight  for  their  country,  to  write  good  verses,  or  to  invent  use- 
ful arts,  was  abundantly  sufficient,  in  the  judgment  of  the  wisest 
heathens,  to  give  men  a  place  in  heaven  ! 

3.  But  this  would  not  pass  with  modern  Romans.     They  despised 
such  gross  imaginations.     But  though  they  did  not  allow  these,  they 


454  A  BLOW  AT  THE  ROOT,  &.C. 

found  out  another  way  to  get  to  heaven  without  holmess.  In  tii-r 
room  of  them  they  substituted  penances,  pilgrimages,  praying  to 
saints  and  angels :  and,  above  all  these,  masses  for  the  dead,  abso- 
lution by  a  priest,  and  extreme  unction.  And  these  satisfy  the  Ro- 
manists full  as  well  as  lustrations  did  the  heathens.  Thousands  oi 
them  make  no  manner  of  doubt,  but  by  a  diligent  use  of  these,  with- 
out any  holiness  at  all,  they  shall  see  the  Lord  in  glory. 

4.  However,  Protestants  will  not  be  satisfied  thus  :  They  know 
this  hope  is  no  better  than  a  spider's  web.  They  are  convinced, 
that  whoever  leans  on  this,  leans  on  the  staff  of  a  broken  reed. 
What  then  can  they  do  ?  How  shall  they  hope  to  see  God  without 
lioliness  1  Why,  by  doing  no  harm,  doing  good,  going  to  the  church 
and  sacrament.  And  many  thousands  sit  down  content  with  this, 
believing  they  are  in  the  high  road  to  heaven. 

5.  Yet  many  cannot  rest  here.  They  look  upon  this  as  the  very 
"  Popery  of  Protestantism."  They  well  know,  that  although  none 
can  be  a  real  Christian,  without  carefully  abstaining  irom  all  evil, 
using  every  means  of  grace,  at  every  opportunity,  and  doing  all  pos- 
sible good  to  all  men :  yet  a  man  may  go  thus  far,  may  do  all  this, 
and  be  but  a  heathen  still.  They  know  this  religion  is  too  super- 
ficial. It  is  but,  as  it  were,  skin  deep.  Therefore  it  is  not  Chris- 
tianity ;  for  that  lies  in  the  heart :  it  is.  Worshipping  God  in  spirit 
and  in  truth.  It  is  no  other  than  "the  Kingdom  of  God  within  us:" 
it  is  "  the  Life  of  God"  in  the  soul  of  man  :  it  is  "  the  mind  which 
was  in  Christ  Jesus  :"  it  is  "  righteousness,  and  peace,  and  joy  in  the 
Holy  Ghost." 

6.  Besides,  they  see  that  be  this  religion  shallower  or  deeper,  it 
does  not  stand  on  the  right  foundation  :  Since  "other  foundation'' 
for  true  religion  "  can  no  man  lay,  than  that  which  is  laid,  even 
Christ  Jesus  :"  since  no  one  can  have  the  mind  which  was  in  Christ, 
till  he  is  justified  by  his  blood  ;  till  he  is  forgiven  and  reconciled  to 
God,  through  the  Redemption  that  is  in  Jesus  Christ.  And  none 
can  be  justified,  they  are  well  assured,  but  by  faith,  even  faith  alone  : 
seeing  "  to  him  (only)  that  believeth  in  God  who  justifieth  the  un- 
godly, his  faith  is  counted  for  righteousness." 

7.  What  evasion  now  ?  What  way  could  Satan  take  to  make  all 
this  Light  of  none  effect  1  What  could  be  done  when  that  grand 
truth,  "  By  grace  ye  are  saved  through  faith,"  was  more  and  more 
generally  received  1  What,  indeed,  but  to  persuade  the  very  men 
who  had  received  it,  to  "turn  the  Grace  of  God  into  lasciviousness  ?" 
To  this  end,  Simon  Magus  appeared  again,  and  taught  "That 
Christ  had  done,  as  well  as  suffered  all :  That  his  righteousness  being 
imputed  to  us,  we  need  none  of  our  own :  That  seeing  there  was 
so  much  righteousness  and  holiness  in  Him,  there  needs  no  more  in 
us :  That  to  think  we  have  any,  or  to  desire  or  seek  any,  is  to  re- 
nounce Christ :  That  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  salvation,  all 
is  in  Christ,  nothing  in  man  ;  and  that  those  who  teach  otherwise  arc 
legal  preachers,  and  know  nothing  of  the  gospel." 

3.  This  is  indeed  "  .4  Blow  at  the  Root.'"  the  root  of  all  holiness. 


A  BLOW  AT  THE  ROOT,  SiLC.  iSjj 

%11  true  religion.  Hereby  Christ  is  "  Stabbed  in  the  House  of  his 
Friends"  of  those  who  make  the  largest  professions  of  loving  and 
honouring  Him  ;  the  whole  design  of  his  death,  namely,  "  to  destroy 
the  works  of  the  Devil,"  being  overthrown  at  a  stroke.  For  wherever 
this  doctrine  is  cordially  received,  it  leaves  no  place  for  holiness.  It 
demolishes  it  from  top  to  bottom  ;  it  destroys  both  root  and  branch. 
It  effectually  tears  up  all  desire  of  it,  all  endeavour  after  it.  It  for- 
bids all  such  exhortations  as  might  excite  those  desires,  or  awaken 
those  endeavours.  Nay,  it  makes  men  afraid  of  personal  holiness, 
afraid  of  cherishing  any  thought  of  it,  or  motion  toward  it,  lest  they 
should  deny  the  faith,  and  reject  Christ  and  his  righteousness.  So 
that  instead  of  being  "  zealous  of  good  works,"  they  are  a  stink  in 
their  nostrils.  And  they  are  infinitely  more  afraid  of  the  works  of 
God,  than  of  the  works  of  the  Devil. 

9.  Here  is  wisdom!  Though  not  the  wisdom  of  the  saints,  but 
wisdom  from  beneath.  Here  is  the  master-piece  of  Satan  :  farther 
than  this  he  cannot  go.  Men  are  holy  without  a  grain  of  holiness  in 
them  !  Holy  in  Christ,  however  unholy  in  themselves  :  they  are  in 
Christ,  without  one  jot  of  the  mind  that  was  in  Christ.  In  Christ, 
though  their  nature  is  whole  in  them.  They  are  "  complete  in  Him," 
though  they  are  in  themselves  as  proud,  as  vain,  as  covetous,  as  pas- 
sionate as  ever :  it  is  enough.  They  may  be  unrighteous  still,  seeing 
Christ  has  "fulfilled  all  righteousness." 

10.  O  ye  simple  ones,  "how long  will  ye  love  simplicity  1"  How 
long  will  ye  "  seek  death  in  the  error  of  your  life  1"  "  Know  ye  not," 
whoever  teacheth  you  otherwise,  "  that  the  unrighteous  shall  not  in- 
herit the  kingdom  of  God  ?"  "  Be  not  deceived  :"  although  there  are 
many  who  lie  in  wait  to  deceive,  and  that  under  the  fair  pretence  of 
exalting  Christ :  a  pretence  which  the  more  easily  steals  upon  you, 
because  to  you  "  He  is  precious."  But  as  the  Lord  liveth,  "  Neithei 
fornicators,  nor  idolaters,  nor  adulterers,  nor  effeminate,  nor  sodom- 
ites, nor  thieves,  nor  covetous,  nor  drunkards,  nor  revilers,  nor  ex- 
tortioners, shall  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God."  Such  indeed  "  were 
some  of  you.  But  ye  are  washed,  but  ye  are  sanctified,  as  well  as 
justified,  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  by  the  Spirit  of  our 
God."  You  are  really  changed  :  You  are  not  only  accounted,  but 
actually  made  righteous.  "  The  law,"  the  inward  power,  "  of  the 
Spirit  of  Life  in  Christ  Jesus,  hath  made  you  free,"  really,  actually 
free,  "  from  the  law  (or  poicer)  of  sin  and  death."  This  is  liberty, 
true  gospel  liberty,  experienced  by  every  believer  :  not  freedom  from 
the  law  of  God,  or  the  works  of  God,  but  from  the  law  of  sin,  and 
the  works  of  the  Devil.  See  that  ye  "  stand  fast"  in  this  real,  not 
imaginary  "liberty,  wherewith  Christ  hath  made  you  free."  And 
take  heed  ye  be  not  "  entangled  again,"  by  means  of  these  vain 
boasters,  "  in  the  yoke"  of  that  vile  "  bondage"  to  sin,  from  which 
ye  are  now  clean  escaped.  I  testify  unto  you,  that  if  you  still  con- 
tinue in  sin,  Christ  shall  profit  you  nothing  :  That  Christ  is  no  Sa- 
viour to  you,  unless  he  saves  you  from  your  sins ;  and  that  imless  it 
purify  your  heart,  faith  shall  profit  you  nothing.     O  when  will  ye 


450  A   BLOW    AT    THE   ROOT,    6^C . 

understand,  that  to  oppose  either  inward  or  outward  holiness,  under 
colour  of  exalting  Christ,  is  directly  to  act  the  part  of  Judas,  to 
*'  betray  the  Son  of  Man  with  a  kiss  1"  Repent,  repent !  lest  He  cut 
you  in  sunder  with  the  two-edged  sword  that  cometh  out  of  his 
mouth  !  It  is  you  yourselves  that,  by  opposing  the  very  end  of  his 
coming  into  the  world,  are  *'  crucifying  the  Son  of  God  afresh,  and 
putting  him  to  an  open  shame."  It  is  you  that  by  expecting  to  see 
the  Lord  without  holiness,  through  the  righteousness  of  Christ, 
"  make  the  blood  of  the  covenant  an  unholy  thing,"  keeping  those 
unholy  that  so  trust  in  it. 

O  beware  !  for  evil  is  before  you  !  If  those  who  name  not  the 
Name  of  Christ,  and  die  in  their  sins  shall  be  punished  seven-fold, 
surely  you  who  thus  make  Christ  "  a  minister  of  sin,"  shall  be 
punished  seventy  and  seven  fold.  What !  make  Christ  destroy  his 
own  kingdom  !  Make  Christ  a  factor  for  Satan  !  Set  Christ  against 
holiness  !  Talk  of  Christ  as  "  saving  his  people  in  their  sins  !"  It 
is  no  better  than  to  say,  He  saves  them  from  the  guilt,  and  not  from 
the  power  of  sin.  Will  you  make  the  righteousness  of  Christ  such 
a  cover  for  the  unrighteousness  of  man  ?  So  that  by  this  mean  the 
unrighteous  of  every  kind  shall  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God  ! — Stop ! 
Consider  !  What  are  you  doing  1  You  did  run  well.  Who  hath  be- 
witched you  ?  Who  hath  corrupted  you  from  the  simplicity  of 
Christ,  from  the  purity  of  the  gospel  ?  You  did  know,  "  He  that 
beheveth  is  born  of  God  :"  and  "whosoever  is  born  of  God  sinneth 
not :"  but  while  "  he  keepeth  himself,  that  wicked  one  toucheth  him 
not."  O  come  back  to  the  true,  the  pure,  the  old  gospel  !  That 
which'  ye  received  in  the  beginning.  Come  back  to  Christ,  who 
died  to  make  you  a  holy  people,  "  zealous  of  good  works."  "  Re- 
"member  from  whence  you  are  fallen,  and  repent  and  do  the  first 
works."  Your  "  Father  worketh  hitherto  :"  do  ye  v/ork  ;  else  your 
faith  is  vain.  For  "  wilt  thou  know,  O  vain,"  O  empty  "  man,  that 
faith  without  works  is  dead  1"  Wilt  thou  know,  that  "  though  I  have 
all  faith,  so  as  to  remove  mountains,  and  have  not  love,  1  am  no- 
thing V  Wilt  thou  know,  that  all  the  blood  and  righteousness  of 
Christ,  unless  that  "  mind  be  in  tlice  which  was  in"  Him,  and' thou 
likewise  "walk  as  Christ  walked,"  will  only  increase  thy  damna- 
tion ]  "If  any  man  teach  otherwise,  and  consent  not  to  wholesome 
words,  and  to  the  doctrine  which  is  according  to  godliness,  he  is 
proud,  knowing  nothing,  but  doting  about  strife  of  words,  whereof 
come  railings,  evil  surmisings  ;  perverse  disputings  of  men  of  cor- 
rupt minds,  and  destitute  of  the  truth."  Be  no  longer  afraid  of  the 
strongest  exhortations  either  to  inward  or  outward  holiness.  Here- 
by God  the  Father  is  glorified,  and  God  the  Son  truly  exalted.  Do 
not  stupidly  and  senselessly  call  this  legal,  a  silly,  unmeaning  word. 
Be  not  afraid  of  being  "  under  the  law  of  God,"  but  of  being  "  under 
the  law  of  sin."  Love  the  strictest  preaching  best,  that  which  most 
searches  the  heart,  and  shows  you  wherein  you  are  unlike  Christ ; 
and  that  which  presses  you  most  to  love  Him  with  all  your  heart, 
and  gerve  him  with  all  your  strength, 


THOUGHTS  UPON   NECESSITY.  457 

1 1.  Suffer  me  to  warn  you  of  another  silly,  unmeaning  word  ;  Do 
iiot  say,  /  can  do  nothing.  If  so,  then  you  know  nothing  of  Christ : 
Then  you  have  no  faith.  For  if  you  have,  if  you  believe,  then  you 
*■*  can  do  all  things,"  through  Christ  who  strengtheneth  you.  You 
can  love  Him,  and  keep  his  commandments  :  and  to  you  his  "  com- 
mandments are  not  grievous :"  Grievous  to  them  that  believe !  Far 
from  it.  They  are  the  joy  of  your  heart.  Show  then  your  love  to 
Christ  by  keeping  his  commandments,  by  walking  in  all  his  ordinances 
blameless.  Honour  Christ,  by  obeying  Him  with  all  your  might,  by 
serving  Him  with  all  your  strength.  Glorify  Christ  by  imitating 
Christ  in  all  things,  by  walking  as  He  walked.  Keep  to  Christ,  by 
keeping  in  his  ways.  Trust  in  Christ,  to  live  and  reign  in  your 
heart.  Have  confidence  in  Christ,  that  He  will  fulfil  in  you  all  his 
great  and  precious  promises,  that  he  will  work  in  you  all  the  good 
pleasure  of  his  goodness,  and  ail  the  work  of  faith  with  power. 
Cleave  to  Christ,  till  his  blood  have  cleansed  you  from  all  pride,  all 
anger,  all  evil  desire.  Let  Christ  do  all !  Let  Him  that  has  done  all 
for  you,  do  aWinyou.  Exalt  Christ,  as  a  Prince, to  give  repentance: 
a  Saviour,  both  to  give  remission  of  sins,  and  to  create  in  you  a  new 
heart,  to  renew  a  right  spirit  within  you.  This  is  the  gospel,  the 
pure,  genuine  gospel ;  glad  tidings  of  great  salvation-  Not  the  new. 
but  the  old,  the  everlasting  gospel :  the  gospel,  not  of  Simon  Magus, 
but  of  Jesus  Christ. 

The  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  give  youj 
-'  according  to  the  riches  of  his  glory,  to  be  strengthened  with  might 
by  his  Spirit  in  the  inner  man,  that  Christ  may  dwell  in  your  hearts 
by  faith  :  That,  being  rooted  and  grounded  in  love,  ye  may  be  able 
to  comprehend  with  all  saints,  what  is  the  length,  and  breadth,  and 
depth,  and  heighth  ;  and  to  know  that  love  of  Christ,  which  surpass- 
^th  knowledge,  that  ye  may  be  filled  with  all  the  fulness  of  God  V' 


THOUGHTS  UPON  NECESSITY. 


TO  THE  READER. 

I  HAD  finished  what  I  designed  to  say  on  this  subject,  when  the 
f'issay  on  Liberty  and  J^ecessity  fell  into  my  hands.  A  most  elaborate 
Piece,  touched  and  retouched  with  all  possible  care.  This  has  occa- 
sioned a  considerable  enlargement  of  the  following  Tract.  I  would 
fain  place  mankind  in  a  fairer  point  of  view  than  that  Writer  has  done : 
as  1  cannot  beheve  the  noblest  creature  in  the  visible  world  to  be  odIj 
a  fine  piece  of  clock-work. 

Vol.  9.--Q  q  ^ 


458  THOUGHTS  UPON  NECESSITY, 

IS  Man  a  Free- Agent ^  or  is  he  not  1  Are  his  actions /rce  or  neces- 
sary? Is  he  self-determined  in  acting;  or  is  he  determined  by  som*; 
other  Being  ?  Is  the  principle  which  determines  him  to  act,  in  him- 
self or  in  another  ]  This  is  the  question  which  I  want  to  consider. 
And  is  it  not  an  important  one  1  Surely  there  is  not  one  of  greater 
importance  in  the  whole  nature  of  things.  For  what  is  there  that 
more  nearly  concerns  all  that  are  born  of  women  1  What  can  be 
conceived,  which  more  deeply  affects,  not  some  only,  but  every 
child  of  man  1 

1.  1.  That  man  is  not  self-determined,  that  the  principle  of  ac- 
tion is  lodged,  not  in  himself,  but  in  some  other  being,  has  been  an 
exceedingly  ancient  opinion,  yea,  near  as  old  as  the  foundation  of  the 
world.  It  seems,  none  that  admit  of  Revelation  can  have  any  doubt 
of  this.  For  it  was  unquestionably  the  sentiment  of  Adam,  soon 
after  he  had  eaten  of  the  forbidden  fruit.  He  imputes  what  he  had 
done  not  to  himself,  but  to  another  :  The  woman  ichom  thou  gavest  mc. 
It  was  also  the  sentiment  of  Eve :  The  serpent  he  beguiled  me,  and  I 
did  eat.  It  is  true,  /  did  eat :  but  the  cause  of  my  eating,  the  spring 
of  my  action,  was  in  another. 

2.  The  same  opinion.  That  man  is  not  self-determined,  took  root 
very  early,  and  spread  wide,  particularly  in  the  Eastern  world,  many 
ages  before  Manes  was  born.  Afterwards  indeed  he  and  his  follow- 
ers, commonly  called  Manichees,  formed  it  into  a  regular  system- 
They  not  only  maintained,  that  all  the  actions  of  man  were  neces- 
sarily determined  by  a  power  exterior  to  himself,  but  likewise  ac- 
counted for  it,  by  ascribing  the  good  to  Oromasdes,  the  parent  of  all 
^■ood :  the  evil  to  the  other  independent  Being,  Arimanius,  the 
parent  of  all  evil. 

3.  From  the  Eastern  World,  "  When  Arts  and  Empire  learned 
to  travel  West,"  this  opinion  travelled  with  them  into  Europe,  and 
soon  found  its  way  into  Greece.  Here  it  was  earnestly  espoused 
and  vehemently  maintained  by  the  Stoic  Philosophers  :  Men  of  great 
renown  among  persons  of  literature,  and  some  of  the  ablest  dispu- 
tants in  the  world.  These  affirmed  with  one  mouth,  That  from  the 
beginning  of  the  world,  if  not  rather  from  all  eternity,  there  was  an 
indissoluble  chain  of  causes  and  effects,  which  included  all  human 
actions.  And  that  these  were  by  fate  so  connected  together,  that 
not  one  link  of  the  chain  could  be  broken. 

4.  A  fine  writer  of  our  own  country,  who  was'  a  few  years  since 
gathered  to  his  fathers,  has,  with  admirable  skill,  drawn  the  same 
t^onclusion,  from  different  premises.  He  lays  it  down  as  a  principle, 
(and  a  principle  it  is,  which  cannot  reasonably  be  denied,)  That  as 
i  jng  as  the  soul  is  vitally  united  to  the  body,  all  its  operations  depend 
on  the  body :  That  in  particular  all  our  thoughts  depend  upon  the 
vibrations  of  the  fibres  of  the  brain  ;  and  of  consequence  vary,  more 
or  less,  as  those  vibrations  vary.  In  that  expression,  our  Thoughts, 
he  comprises  all  our  sensations,  all  our  reflections  and  passions  :  yea, 
and  all  our  volitions,  and  consequently  our  actions,  which  he  sup- 
poses, unavoidably  follow  those  vibrations.     He  premisesj "  But  yon 


THOUGHTS   UPON   NECESSITV.  459 

will  say,  this  scheme  infers  the  universal  necessity  of  human  actions  : 
And  frankly  adds,  "  Certainly  it  does.  I  am  sorry  for  it :  But  I  can- 
not help  it." 

5.  And  this  is  the  scheme  which  is  now  adopted,  by  not  a  few 
of  the  most  sensible  men  in  our  nation.  One  of  these  fairly  confess 
ing,  that "  He  did  not  think  himself  a  sinner,"  was  asked,  "  Do  you 
never  feel  any  wrong  tempers  1  And  do  you  never  speak  or  act  in 
such  a  manner  as  your  own  reason  condemns  ?''  He  candidly  an- 
swered, "  Indeed  I  do.  1  frequently  feel  tempers,  and  speak  many 
words,  and  do  many  actions,  which  I  do  not  approve  of.  But  I  can- 
not avoid  it.  They  result,  whether  I  will  or  not,  from  the  vibrations 
of  my  brain,  together  with  the  motion  of  my  blood,  and  the  flow  of 
my  animal  spirits.  But  these  are  not  in  my  own  power.  I  cannot 
help  them.  They  are  independent  on  my  choice.  And  therefore 
I  cannot  apprehend  myself  to  be  a  sinner  on  this  account." 

6.  Very  lately  another  gentleman  in  free  conversation,  was  car- 
rying this  matter  a  little  farther.  Being  asked,  "  Do  you  believe 
GOD  is  Almighty  ]"  He  answered,  "  I  do  ;  or  he  could  not  have 
made  the  world."  "  Do  you  believe  he  is  wise  V  "  I  cannot  tell. 
Much  may  be  said  on  both  sides."  "  Do  you  believe  he  is  good  V 
*  No.  I  cannot  believe  it :  I  believe  just  the  contrary.  For  all  the 
evil  in  the  world  is  owing  to  Him  :  1  can  ascribe  it  to  no  other  cause. 
I  cannot  blame  that  cur  for  barking  or  bithig  :  it  is  his  nature  :  and 
he  did  not  make  himself.  I  feel  wrong  tempers  in  myself.  But  that 
is  not  my  fault ;  for  I  cannot  help  it.  It  is  my  nature  :  And  I  could 
not  prevent  my  having  this  nature,  neither  can  I  change  it." 

7.  The  Assembly  of  Divines,  who  met  at  Westminster  in  the  last 
century,  express  very  nearly  the  same  sentiment,  though  placed  in 
a  different  light.  They  speak  to  this  effect :  "  Whatever  happens  in 
time,  was  unchangeably  determined  from  all  eternity.  GOD  or- 
dained or  ever  the  world  was  made,  all  the  things  that  should  come 
to  pass  therein.  The  greatest  and  the  smallest  events  were  equally 
predetermined  :  in  particular  all  the  thoughts,  all  the  words,  all  the 
actions  of  every  child  of  man  :  All  that  every  man  thinks,  or  speaks, 
or  does,  from  his  birth,  till  his  spirit  returns  to  God  that  gave  it." 
It  follows,  that  no  man  can  do  either  more  or  less  good,  or  more  or 
less  evil  than  he  does.  None  can  think,  speak,  or  act,  any  other- 
wise than  he  does,  not  in  any  the  smallest  circumstance.  In  all,  he 
is  bound  by  an  invisible,  but  more  than  adamantine  chain.  No  man 
can  move  his  head  or  foot,  open  or  shut  his  eyes,  lift  his  hand,  or  stir 
a  finger,  any  otherwise  than  as  GOD  determined  he  should,  from  all 
eternity. 

8.  That  this  chain  is  invisible,  they  allow  :  Man  himself  perceives 
nothing  of  it.  He  suspects  nothing  less  :  He  imagines  himself  to  be 
free  in  all  his  actions.  He  seems  to  move  hither  and  thither,  to  go 
this  way  or  that,  to  choose  doing  evil,  or  doing  good,  just  at  his  own 
discretion.  But  all  this  is  an  entire  mistake,  it  is  no  more  than  a 
pleasing  dream.     For  all  his  ways  are  fixed,  as  the  pillars  of  heaven  ; 


460  THOUGHTS  rPOK   NECESSITT. 

all  unalterably  determined.     So  that  notwithstanding  these  gay,  flat- 
tering appearances, 

"  In  spite  of  all  the  labour  we  create, 
We  only  roio  ;  but  we  are  steer'd  by  Fate !" 

9.  A  late  writer,  in  his  celebrated  book  upon  Free-Will,  explains 
ihe  matter  thus.  "  The  soul  is  now  connected  with  a  material  vehi- 
cle, and  placed  in  the  material  world.  Various  objects  here  conti- 
nually strike  upon  one  or  other  of  the  bodily  organs.  These  com- 
municate the  impression  to  the  brain  ;  consequent  on  which  such  and 
such  sensations  follow.  These  are  the  materials  on  which  the  un- 
derstanding works,  in  forming  all  its  simple  and  complex  ideas :  ac- 
cording to  which  our  judgments  are  formed.  And  according  to 
our  judgments  are  our  passions  ;  our  love  and  hate,  joy  and  sor- 
row, desire  and  fear,  with  their  innumerable  combinations.  Now 
all  these  passions  together  are  the  icill  variously  modified.  And  ali 
actions  flowing  from  the  will,  are  voluntary  actions.  Consequently 
they  are  good  or  evil,  v/hich  otherwise  they  could  not  be.  And  yet 
it  is  not  in  man  to  direct  his  own  way,  while  he  is  in  the  body,  and 
in  the  world." 

1 0.  The  Author  of  an  Essay  on  Liberty  and  J^ecessity,  published 
some  years  since  at  Edinburgh,  speaks  still  more  explicitly,  and  en- 
deavours to  trace  the  matter  to  the  foundation.  "  The  impressions,'* 
says  he,  "  which  man  receives  in  the  natural  world,  do  not  corres- 
pond to  the  truth  of  things.  Thus  the  qualities  called  secondary, 
which  we  by  natural  instinct  attribute  to  matter,  belong  not  to  mat- 
ter, nor  exist  without  us :  but  all  the  beauty  of  colours  with  which 
heaven  and  earth  appear  clothed,  is  a  sort  of  romance  or  illusion. 
For  in  external  objects  there  is  really  no  other  distinction,  but  that 
of  the  size  and  arrangement  of  their  constituent  parts,  whereby  the 
rays  of  light  are  variously  reflected  and  refracted."  p.  152,  &c. 

"  In  the  moral  world,  whatever  is  a  cause,  with  regard  to  its  proper 
effect,  is  an  effect  with  regard  to  some  prior  cause,  and  so  backward 
without  end.  Events  therefore  being  a  train  of  causes  and  effects, 
are  necessary  and  fixed.  Every  one  must  be,  and  cannot  be  other 
ways  than  it  is."  p.  157,  &c. 

"  And  yet  a  feeling  of  an  opposite  kind  is  deeply  rooted  in  oui 
nature.  Many  things  appear  to  us,  as  not  predetermined  by  any 
invariable  law.  We  naturally  make  a  distinction,  between  things 
that  must  be,  and  things  that  may  be,  or  may  not. 

"  So  with  regard  to  the  actions  of  men.  We  see  that  connexion 
between  an  action  and  its  motive  to  be  so  strong,  that  we  reason  with 
full  confidence,  concerning  the  future  actions  of  others.  But  if 
actions  necessarily  arise  from  their  proper  motives,  then  all  human 
actions  are  necessary  and  fixed.  Yet  they  do  not  appear  so  to  us. 
Indeed  before  any  particular  action,  we  always  judge,  that  the  action 
will  be  the  necessary  result  of  some  motive.  But  afterwards  the 
feeling  instantly  varies.  We  accuse  and  condemn  a  man  for  doing 
what  is  wrong.     We  conceive,  he  had  a  power  of  acting  otherwisej 


I 


THOUGHTS    UPON   NECESSITY-  4G1 

uiul  tlic  whole  train  of  our  feelings  suppose  him  to  have  been  entirely 
a  free  agent." 

"  But  what  does  this  liberty  amount  to?  In  all  cases  our  choice 
is  determined  by  some  motive.  It  must  be  determined  by  that  motive, 
Avhich  appears  the  best  upon  the  whole.  But  motives  are  not  under 
our  power  or  direction.  When  two  motives  oft'er,  we  have  not  the 
power  of  choosing  as  we  please.     JVe  are  necessarily  determined." 

"  Man  is  passive  in  receiving  impressions  of  things  ;  according  to 
which  the  judgment  is  necessarily  formed.  This  the  will  necessarily 
o  beys,  and  the  outward  action  necessarily  follows  the  will. 

"  Hence  it  appears,  that  God  decrees  all  future  events.  He  who 
gave  such  a  nature  to  his  creatures,  and  placed  them  in  such  circum- 
stances, that  a  certain  train  of  actions  must  necessarily  follow  :  He 
who  did  so,  and  who  must  have  foreseen  the  consequences,  did  cer- 
tainly decree,  That  those  events  should  fall  out,  and  that  men  should 
act  just  as  they  do. 

"  The  Deity  is  the  first  cause  of  all  things.  He  formed  the  plan 
on  which  all  things  were  to  be  governed,  and  put  it  in  execution  by 
establishing  both  in  the  natural  and  moral  world,  certain  laws  that 
are  fixed  and  immutable.  By  virtue  of  these,  all  things  proceed  in 
a  regular  train  of  causes  and  effects,  bringing  about  the  events  con- 
tained in  the  original  plan,  and  admitting  the  possibility  of  no  other. 
This  universe  is  a  vast  machine  winded  up  and  set  a-going.  The 
several  springs  and  wheels  act  unerringly  upon  one  another.  The 
hand  advances  and  the  clock  strikes,  precisely  as  the  artist  has  de- 
termined. In  this  plan,  man,  a  rational  creature,  was  to  fulfil  certain 
ends.  He  was  to  appear  as  an  actor,  and  to  act  with  consciousness  and 
spontaneity.  Consequently  it  was  necessary  he  should  have  some 
idea  of  liberty,  some  feeling  of  things  possible  and  contingent,  things 
depending  on  himself,  that  he  might  be  led  to  exercise  that  activity, 
for  which  he  was  designed.  To  have  seen  himself  a  part  of  that 
great  machine,  would  have  been  altogether  incongruous  to  the  ends 
he  was  to  fulfil.  Had  he  seen  that  nothing  was  contingent,  there 
Avould  have  been  no  room  for  forethought,  nor  for  any  sort  of  industry 
or  care.  Reason  could  not  have  been  exercised  in  the  way  it  is  now ; 
that  is,  man  could  not  have  been  man.  But  now,  the  moment  he 
comes  into  the  world,  he  acts  as  a  free-agent.  And  contingency, 
though  it  has  no  real  existence  in  things,  is  made  to  appear  as  really 
existing.  Thus  is  our  natural  feeling  directly  opposite  to  truth  and 
matter  of  fact :  seeing  it  is  certainly  impossible,  that  any  man  should 
act  any  otherwise  than  he  does." 

See  necessity  drawn  at  full  length,  and  painted  in  the  most  lively 
colours  ! 

II.  1.  It  is  easy  to  observe,  That  every  one  of  these  schemes  im- 
plies the  universal  necessity  of  human  actions.  In  this  they  all  agree^ 
that  man  is  not  a  free,  but  a  necessary  agent,  being  absolutely  deter- 
nnned  in  all  his  actions,  by  a  principle  exterior  to  himself.  But  they 
do  not  agree  what  that  principle  is.  The  most  ancient  of  them,  the 
Manichaean,  maintained  that  men  are  determined  to  evil,  by  the  evil 

Qq2 


i(i2  THOUGHTS   LTON    KECESSITV, 

god,  Aiimanms  :  that  Oromasdes,  the  good  god,  would  prevent,  Oa 
remove  that  evil,  but  cannot:  the  power  of  the  evil  god  being  so 
great  that  he  is  not  able  to  control  it. 

2.  The  Stoics,  on  the  other  hand,  did  not  impute  the  evil  that  is 
in  the  world  to  any  intelligent  principle,  but  either  to  the  original 
stubbornness  of  matter,  which  even  Divine  Power  was  not  capable 
of  removing :  to  the  concatenation  of  causes  and  effects,  which  no 
power  whatever  could  alter :  or  to  unconquerable  fate,  to  which  they 
supposed  all  the  gods,  the  Supreme  not  excepted,  to  be  subject. 

3.  The  author  of  two  volumes  entitled  Man,  rationally  rejects  all 
the  preceding  schemes,  while  he  deduces  all  human  actions  from 
those  passions  and  judgments,  which,  during  the  present  union  of 
the  soul  and  body,  necessarily  result  from  such  and  such  vibrations 
of  the  fibres  of  the  brain.  Herein  he  indirectly  ascribes  the  necessity 
of  all  human  actions  to  God  :  who  having  fixed  the  laws  of  this  vital 
union,  according  to  his  own  good  pleasure  ;  having  so  constituted 
man,  that  the  motions  of  the  soul  thus  depend  on  the  fibres  of  the 
body,  has  thereby  laid  him  under  an  invincible  necessity  of  acting  thus, 
and  in  no  other  manner  So  do  those  likewise,  who  suppose  all  the 
judgments  and  passions  necessarily  to  flow  from  the  motion  of  the 
blood  and  spirits.  For  this  is  indirectly  to  impute  all  our  passions 
and  actions  to  Him,  who  alone  determined  the  manner  wherein  our 
blood  and  spirits  should  move. 

4.  The  gentleman  next  mentioned  does  this  directly,  without  any 
softening  or  circumlocution  at  all.  He  flatly  and  roundly  affirms, 
The  Creator  is  the  proper  author  of  every  thing  which  man  does  : 
that  by  creating  him  thus.  He  has  absolutely  determined  the  manner 
wherein  he  shall  act;  and  that  therefore  man  can  no  more  help  sin- 
ning, than  a  stone  can  help  falling.  The  Assembly  of  Divines  do  as 
directly  ascribe  the  necessity  of  human  actions  to  God,  in  affirming, 
that  God  has  eternally  determined  whatsoever  shall  be  done  in  time. 
So  likewise  does  Mr.  Edwards  of  New  England :  in  proving  by 
abundance  of  deep  metaphysical  reasoning,  that  "we  must  see,  hea.r, 
taste,  feel  the  objects  that  surround  us,  and  must  have  such  judg- 
ments, passions,  actions,  and  no  other."  He  flatly  ascribes  the  neces- 
sity of  all  our  actions,  to  him  who  united  our  souls  to  these  bodies, 
placed  us  in  the  midst  of  these  objects,  and  ordered,  that  these  sensa- 
tions, judgments,  passions,  and  actions,  should  spring  therefrom. 

5.  The  author  last  cited  connects  together  and  confirms  all  the 
preceding  schemes ;  particularly  those  of  the  ancient  Stoics  and  the 
modern  Calvinists. 

HI.  It  is  not  easy  for  a  man  of  common  understanding,  especially 
if  unassisted  by  education,  to  unravel  these  finely  woven  schemes, 
or  show  distinctly,  where  the  fallacy  lies.  But  he  knows,  he  feels, 
he  is  certain,  they  cannot  be  true :  that  the  Holy  God  cannot  be  the 
author  of  sin.  The  horrid  consequences  of  supposing  this,  may 
appear  to  the  meanest  understanding  from  a  few  plain,  obvious  con- 
siderations, of  which  every  man  that  has  common  sense  may  judge. 


THOUGHTS  UrON  NECESSITY,  4&3 

I.  It  all  the  passions,  the  tempers,  the  actions  of  men,  are  wholly 
independent  on  their  own  choice,  are  governed  by  a  principle  ex- 
terior to  themselves,  then  there  can  be  no  moral  good  or  eviL 
There  can  be  neither  virtue  nor  vice,  neither  good  nor  bad  actions, 
neither  good  nor  bad  passions  or  tempers.  The  sun  does  much 
good  :  but  it  is  no  virtue  :  but  he  is  not  capable  of  moral  goodness. 
Why  is  he  not  ?  For  this  plain  reason,  because  he  does  not  act 
from  choice.  The  sea  does  much  harm  :  it  swallows  up  thousands 
of  men  :  but  it  is  not  cajable  of  moral  badness :  because  it  does 
not  act  by  choice,  but  from  a  necessity  of  nature,  if  indeed  one  or 
the  other  can  be  said  to  act  at  all.  Properly  speaking  it  does  not : 
it  is  purely  passive  :  it  is  only  acted  upon  by  the  Creator:  and  must 
move  in  this  manner  and  no  other,  seeing  it  cannot  resist  his  will. 
In  like  manner,  St.  Paul  did  much  good  :  but  it  was  no  virtue,  if  he 
did  not  act  from  choice.  And  if  he  was  in  all  things  necessitated 
to  think  and  act,  he  was  not  capable  of  moral  goodness.  Nero  does 
much  evil :  murders  thousands  of  men,  and  sets  fire  to  the  city  :  but 
it  is  no  fault :  he  is  not  capable  of  moral  badness,  if  he  does  not 
act  from  choice  but  necessity.  Nay,  properly  the  man  does  not  act 
at  all :  he  is  only  acted  upon  by  the  Creator,  and  rmist  move  thuSj 
being  irresistibly  impelled.     For  who  can  resist  his  will  1 

2.  Again.  If  all  the  actions,  and  passions,  and  tempers  of  men 
are  quite  independent  on  their  own  choice,  are  governed  by  a  prin- 
ciple exterior  to  themselves,  then  none  of  them  is  either  rewardable 
or  punishable,  is  either  praise  or  blame-worthy.  The  consequence 
is  undeniable  :  I  cannot  praise  the  sun  for  warming,  nor  blame  the 
stone  for  wounding  me  :  because  neither  the  sun  nor  the  stone  acts 
from  choice,  but  from  necessity.  Therefore  neither  does  the  latter 
deserve  blame,  nor  the  former  deserve  praise.  Neither  is  the  one 
capable  of  reward,  nor  the  other  of  punishment.  And  if  a  man 
does  good  as  necessarily  as  the  sun,  he  is  no  more  praise-worthy 
than  that.  If  he  does  evil  as  necessarily  as  the  stone,  he  is  no  more 
blame-worthy.  The  dying  to  save  your  country  is  no  way  reward- 
able,  if  you  are  compelled  thereto.  And  the  betraying  your  country 
is  no  way  punishable,  if  you  are  necessitated  to  do  it. 

3.  It  follows,  if  there  be  no  such  thing  as  virtue  or  vice,  as  moral 
good  or  evil,  if  there  be  nothing  rewardable  or  punishable  in  the  ac- 
tions or  passions  of  men,  then  there  can  be  no  judgment  to  come, 
and  no  future  rewards  and  punishments.  For  might  not  God  as  well 
judge  the  trees  of  the  wood,  or  the  stones  of  the  field  as  man,  if 
man  be  as  totally  passive  as  they  1  As  irresistibly  determined  to  think, 
s])eak,  and  act  thus  or  thus  ?  What  should  he  be  commended  or  re- 
warded for,  who  never  did  any  good,  but  when  he  could  not  help  itj 
being  impelled  thereto  by  a  force  which  he  could  not  withstand  '!. 
What  should  he  be  blamed  or  punished  for,  who  never  did  any  evil, 
to  which  he  was  not  determined  by  a  power  he  could  no  more  resist 
than  he  could  shake  the  pillars  of  heaven  1 

This  objection  the  author  of  the  Essay  gives  in  its  full  strength; 
"Tlie  advocates  for  liberty  reason  thus.     If  actions  be  necessary. 


164  THOUGHTS   ITON   NECESSITY. 

and  not  in  our  own  power,  what  groimd  is  there  for  blame,  self-con- 
demnation, or  remorse  ?  If  a  clock  were  sensible  ol"  its  own  motions, 
and  knew  that  they  proceeded  according  to  necessary  laws,  could  it 
find  fault  with  itself  for  striking  wrong  1  Would  it  not  blame  the 
artist,  who  had  so  ill  adjusted  the  wheels  1  So  that  upon  this  scheme, 
all  the  moral  constitution  of  our  nature  is  overturned.  There  is  an 
end  to  all  the  operations  of  conscience,  about  right  and  wrong. 
Man  is  no  longer  a  moral  agent,  nor  the  subject  of  praise  or  blame 
for  what  he  does." 

He  strangely  answers,  "  Certainly  the  pain,  the  remorse  which  is 
felt  by  any  man  who  has  been  guilty  of  a  bad  action,  springs  from 
the  notion,  that  he  has  a  power  over  his  own  actions,  that  he  might 
have  forborne  to  do  it.  it  is  on  this  account,  that  he  is  angry  at 
himself,  and  confesses  himself  to  be  blamable.  That  uneasiness 
proceeds  on  the  supposition,  that  he  is  free,  and  might  have  acted  a 
better  part.  And  one  under  the  dominion  of  bad  passions  is  con- 
demned upon  this  ground,  that  it  was  in  his  power  to  be  free  from 
them.  Were  not  this  the  case,  brutes  might  be  the  objects  of  moral 
blame  as  well  as  man.  But  we  do  not  blame  them,  because  they 
have  not  freedom,  a  power  of  directing  their  own  actions.  We  must, 
therefore,  admit,  that  the  idea  of  freedom,  is  essential  to  the  moral 
feeling.  On  the  system  of  universal  necessity,  there  could  be  no 
place  for  blame  or  remorse.  And  we  struggle  in  vain  to  reconcile 
to  this  system,  the  testimony  which  conscience  clearly  gives  to 
freedom." 

Is  this  an  answer  to  the  objection  ?  Is  it  not  fairly  giving  up  the 
whole  cause  1 

He  adds,  "A  feeling  of  liberty,  which  I  now  scruple  not  to  call 
deceitful,  is  interwoven  with  our  nature.  Man  must  be  so  constituted, 
in  order  to  attain  virtue."  To  attain  virtue  I  Nay,  you  have  your- 
self allowed,  that  on  this  supposition,  virtue  and  vice  can  have  no 
being.  You  go  on.  "If  he  saw  himself  as  he  really  is,"  [Sir, 
do  not  you  see  yourself  so  ?]  "  if  he  conceived  himself  and  all  his 
actions,  necessarily  linked  into  the  great  chain,  which  renders  the 
whole  order  both  of  the  natural  and  moral  world  unalterably  deter- 
mined in  every  article,  what  Avould  follow?'  Why  just  nothing  at 
all.  The  great  chain  must  remain  as  it  was  before:  since  whatever 
you  see  or  conceive,  that  is  "  unalterably  determined  in  every  ar- 
ticle." 

To  confute  himself  still  more  fully,  he  says,  "  If  we  knew  good 
and  evil  to  be  necessary  and  unavoidable,"  [contradiction  in  terms  ; 
but  let  it  pass]  "  there  would  be  no  more  place  for  praise  or  blame  : 
no  indignation  at  those  who  had  abused  their  rational  powers  ;  no 
sense  of  just  punishment  annexed  to  crimes,  or  of  any  reward  de- 
served by  good  actions.  All  these  feelings  vanish  at  once,  with  the 
feeling  of  liberty.  And  the  sense  of  duty  must  be  quite  extin* 
guished  ;  for  we  cannot  conceive  any  moral  obligation,  without  sup- 
posing a  power  in  the  Agent  over  his  own  actions." 

If  so.  What  is  he,  who  publishes  a  book,  to  show  mankind,  tta) 
they  have  no  power  over  their  own  actions  1 


THOUGHTS   UPON   NECESSITY.  465 

To  the  objection,  that  this  scheme  "  makes  God  the  author  of 
sin,'*  the  Essayist  feebly  answers,  *'  Sin,  or  moral  turpitude,  Ues  in 
the  evil  intention  of  him  that  commits  it;  or  in  some  wrong  affection. 
Now  there  is  no  wrong  intention  in  God."  What  then?  Whatever 
wrong"  intention  or  affection  is  in  man,  you  make  God  the  direct 
author  of  it.  For  you  flatly  atfirm,  "  moral  evil  cannot  exist,  with- 
out being  permitted  of  God.  And  with  regard  to  a  first  cause, /;er- 
mitt'mg  is  the  same  thing  as  causing. ^^  That  T  totally  deny  :  but  if  it 
be,  God  is  the  proper  cause  of  all  the  sin  in  the  universe. 

4.  Suppose  now  the  Judge  of  all  the  earth,  having  just  pronounced 
the  awlul  sentence.  Depart,  ye  cursed,  into  everlasting  fire,  prepared  for 
the  Devil  and  his  angels,  should  say  to  one  on  the  left  hand,  "What 
canst  thou  offer,  in  thy  own  behalf?"  Might  he  not  on  this  scheme, 
answer,  "Lord,  why  am  I  doomed  to  dw^ell  with  everlasting  burn- 
ings 1  For  not  doing  goc<l  1  Was  it  ever  in  my  power  to  do  any 
good  action  ]  Could  I  ever  do  any,  but  by  that  grace  which  thou 
hadst  determined  not  to  give  me  ?  For  doing  evil  1  Lord,  did  1  ever 
do  any,  which  I  was  not  bound  to  do  by  thy  own  decree  1  Was 
there  ever  a  moment  when  it  was  in  my  power,  either  to  do  good,  or 
to  cease  from  evil '?  Didst  not  thou  fix  whatever  I  should  do,  or  not 
do,  or  ever  I  came  into  the  world  ?  And  was  there  ever  one  hour, 
from  my  cradle  to  my  grave,  wherein  I  could  act  otherwise  than  I 
did  ?'  Now,  let  any  man  say.  Whose  mouth  would  be  stopped,  that 
of  the  criminal,  or  the  Judge  ? 

5.  But  if  upon  this  supposition,  there  can  be  no  judgment  to  come, 
and  no  future  rewards  or  punishments  ;  it  likewise  follows,  that  the 
Scriptures,  which  assert  both,  cannot  be  of  divine  original.  If 
there  be  not  a  day  ui herein  GOD  icill  judge  the  world,  by  that  man 
whom  he  hath  appointed;  if  the  wicked  shall  not  go  into  eternal  punish- 
ment, neither  the  righteous  into  lije  eternal :  what  can  we  think  of 
that  Book,  which  so  frequently  and  solemnly  affirms  all  these  things  1 
We  can  no  longer  maintain,  that  all  Scripture  was  given  by  inspira- 
tion of  GOD,  since  it  is  impossible,  that  the  God  of  truth,  should 
be  the  author  of  palpable  falsehoods.  So  that  whoever  asserts  the 
pre-determination  of  all  human  actions,  a  doctrine  totally  incon- 
sistent with  the  scriptural  doctrines  of  a  future  judgment,  heaven 
and  hell,  strikes  hereby  at  the  very  foundation  of  Scripture,  which 
must  necessarily  stand  or  fall  with  them. 

Such  absurdities  will  naturally  and  necessarily  follow,  from  the 
scheme  of  necessity.  But  Mr.  Edwards  has  found  out  a  most  in- 
genious way  of  evading  this  consequence.  "  I  grant,"  (says  that 
good  and  sensible  man,)  "if  the  actions  of  men  were  involuntary^ 
the  consequences  would  inevitably  follow  ;  they  could  not  be  either 
good  or  evil :  nor,  therefore,  could  they  be  the  proper  object,  either 
of  reward  or  punishment.  But  here  lies  the  very  ground  of  your 
mistake  :  their  actions  are  not  involuntary.  The  actions  of  men  are 
quite  voluntary :  the  fruit  of  their  own  will.  They  love,  they  desire 
evil  things  ;  therefore  they  commit  them.  But  love  and  hate,  desire 
and  aversion  are  only  several  modes  of  willing.    Now  if  men  volun- 


4G6  THOUGHTS   UPON   NECESSITY, 

larily  commit  theft,  adultery,  or  murder,  certainly  the  actions  are 
evil,  and  therefore  punishable.  And  if  they  voluntarily  serve  GOD, 
and  help  their  neighbours,  the  actions  are  good  and  therefore  re- 
wardable." 

7.  I  cannot  possibly  allow  the  consequence,  upon  Mr.  Edwards's 
supposition.  Still  1  say,  if  they  are  necessitated  to  commit  robbery 
or  murder,  they  are  not  punishable  for  committing  it.  But  you  an- 
swer, "  Nay,  their  actions  are  voluntary,  the  fruit  of  their  own  will." 
If  they  are,  yet  that  is  not  enough,  to  make  them  either  good  or  evil. 
For  their  will,  on  your  supposition,  is  irresistibly  impelled  :  so  that 
they  cannot  help  willing  thus  or  thus.  If  so,  they  are  no  more 
blameable  for  that  ivill,  than  for  the  actions  which  follow  it.  Then 
is  no  blame,  if  they  are  under  a  necessity  of  willing  There  can  be 
no  moral  good  or  evil,  unless  they  have  liberty  as  well  as  icill, 
which  is  entirely  a  different  thing.  And  the  not  adverting  to  this, 
seems  to  be  the  direct  occasion  of  Mr.  Edwards's  whole  mistake. 

8.  GOD  created  man  an  intelligent  being;  and  endued  him  with 
will  as  well  as  understanding.  Indeed  it  seems,  without  this,  his  un- 
derstanding would  have  been  given  to  no  purpose.  Neither  would 
either  his  will  or  understanding  have  answered  any  valuable  pur- 
pose, if  liberty  had  not  been  added  to  them,  a  power  distinct  jfrom 
both  ;  a  power  of  choosing  for  himself,  a  self-determining  principle. 
It  may  be  doubted  whether  GOD  ever  made  an  intelligent  creature, 
without  all  these  three  faculties  1  Whether  any  Spirit  ever  existed 
without  them  1  Yea,  whether  they  are  not  implied  in  the  very  nature 
of  a  Spirit  1  Certain  it  is,  that  no  being  can  be  accountable  for  its 
actions  which  has  not  liberty,  as  well  as  will  and  understanding. 

How  admirably  is  this  painted  by  Milton  supposing  GOD  to  speak 
concerning  his  new-made  creature. 

"I  made  him  just  and  right, 

SufGcient  to  hive  stood,  though  free  to  fall. 

Such  I  created  all  th'  ethereal  powers — 

Fre<  ly  they  stood  who  stood,  and  fell  who  fell. 

Not  free,  what  proof  could  they  have  given  sincere 

Of  t!  ue  allegiance,  constant  faith  and  love. 

Where  only  what  they  needs  imist  do  appear'd, 

Not  what  they  ivoidd.    What  praise  could  they  receive. 

What  pleasure  I,  (rom  such  obedience  paid, 

When  Will  and  Reason  (Rtason  also  is  Choice) 

Usele  -s  and  vain,  of  freedom  both  despoii'd 

Made  passive  both,  had  served  Necessity, 

Not  mj  ?     They,  therefore,  as  to  right  belong'd. 

So  were  created. — 

So  without  least  impulse  or  shadow  of  fate 

Or  aught  by  me  immutably  foreseen 

They  trespass,  authors  to  themselves  in  all, 

Both  what  they  judge  and  what  they  choose  :    For  so 

I  fonn'd  them  free  ;  and  free  they  must  remain, 

Till  they  enthrall  themselves.     I  else  must  change 

Their  Nature  and  reverse  the  high  decree, 

Unchangesible,  eternal,  which  ordain'd 

Their  freedom  :  they  themselves  ordain'd  their  fall. 

Paradise  Lost,  Book  III. 

y.  It  seems,  they  who  divide  the  faculties  of  the  human  soul  iutit 


THOUGHTS   UPON   NECESSITY.  467 

the  understanding,  will,  and  affections,  unless  they  make  the  will  and 
affections  the  same  thing ;  (and  then  how  inaccurate  is  the  division?) 
must  mean  by  affections,  the  will  properly  speaking,  and  by  the 
term  will,  neither  more  nor  less  than  liberty :  the  power  of  choosing 
either  to  do  or  not  to  do,  (commonly  called  liberty  of  contradiction,) 
or  to  do  this  or  the  contrary,  good  or  evil,  commonly  called  liberty 
of  contrariety.  Without  the  former  at  least,  there  can  be  nothing 
good  or  evil,  rewardable  or  punishable.  But  it  is  plain,  the  doctrine 
of  necessity,  as  taught  either  by  the  ancient  Heathens,  or  by  the 
moderns,  (whether  Deists  or  Christians,)  destroys  both,  leaves  not  a 
shadow  of  either,  in  any  soul  of  man.  Consequently  it  destroys  all 
the  morality  of  human  actions,  making  man  a  mere  machine, 
and  leaves  no  room  for  any  judgment  to  come,  or  for  either  rewards 
or  punishments. 

IV.  1.  But  whatever  be  the  consequences  deducible  from  this, 
That  all  human  actions  are  necessary,  how  will  you  answer  the  ar- 
guments which  are  brought,  in  defence  of  this  position  1  Let  us  try, 
whether  something  of  this  kind,  may  not  be  done  in  a  few  words. 

Indeed  as  to  the  first  scheme,  that  of  the  Manichees,  the 
maintainers  of  a  good  and  an  evil  God,  though  it  was  formerly  es- 
poused by  men  of  renov/n,  St.  Augustine  in  particular ;  yet  it  is  now 
so  utterly  out  of  date,  that  it  would  be  k  st  labour  to  confute  it.  A 
little  more  plausible  is  the  scheme  of  ^Lie  *S7oics  building  necessity 
upon  fate,  upon  the  insuperable  stubbornness  of  matter,  or  the  indis- 
soluble chain  of  causes  and  effects.  Perhaps  they  invented  this 
scheme,  to  exculpate  GOD  ;  to  avoid  laying  the  blame  upon  Him; 
by  allowing,  He  would  have  done  better,  if  he  could  :  that  he  was 
willing  to  cure  the  evil,  but  was  not  able.  But  we  may  answer  them 
short.  There  is  no  fate  above  the  most  High ;  that  is  an  idle  irra- 
tional fiction :  neither  is  there  any  thing  in  the  nature  of  matter, 
which  is  not  obedient  to  his  word.  The  Almighty  is  able  in  the 
twinkling  of  an  eye,  to  reduce  any  matter  into  any  form  he  pleases: 
or  to  speak  it  into  nothing;  in  a  moment  to  expunge  it  out  of  hii^ 
Creation. 

2.  The  still  more  plausible  scheme  of  Dr.  Hartley,  (and  I  migljf 
add,  those  of  the  two  gentlemen  above  mentioned,  which  nearly 
coincide  with  it)  now  adopted  by  almost  all  who  doubt  of  the  Chris- 
tian system,  requires  a  more  particular  consideration,  were  it  only 
because  it  has  so  many  admirers.  And  it  certainly  contains  a  great 
deal  of  truth,  as  will  appear  to  any  that  considers  it  calmly.  For  who 
j:an  deny,  that  not  only  the  memory,  but  all  the  operations  of  the 
soul  are  now  dependent  on  the  bodily  organs,  the  brain  in  particu- 
lar ?  Insomuch  that  a  blow  on  the  back  part  of  the  head,  (as  frequent 
experience  shows,)  may  take  away  the  understanding,  and  destroy 
at  once  both  sensation  and  reflection :  and  an  irregular  flow  ol 
spirits  may  quickly  turn  the  deepest  philosopher  into  a  madman. 
We  must  allow  likewise,  that  while  the  very  power  of  thinking  de- 
pends so  much  upon  the  brain,  our  judgments  must  needs  depencj 
theTeon,  and  in  the  same  proportion.     It  must  be  farther  allowed^ 


468  THOUGHTS   fPOX   NECESSITY. 

that  as  our  sensatioHS,  our  reflections,  and  our  judgments,  so  our  will 
and  passions  also,  which  naturally  follow  from  our  judgments,  ulti- 
mately depend  on  the  fibres  of  the  brain.  But  does  all  this  infer  the 
total  necessity  of  all  human  actions  ]  "  I  am  sorry  for  it,  says  the 
Dr.  but  I  cannot  help  it.**  I  verily  think  I  can.  I  think,  I  can  not 
only  cut  the  knot,  by  showing  (as  above)  the  intolerable  absurdities 
which  this  scheme  implies  :  but  fairly  witie  it,  by  pointing  out  just 
where  the  fallacy  lies. 

3.  But  first  permit  me  to  say  a  word  to  the  author  of  the  Essay. 
His  grand  reason,  for  supposing  all  mankind  in  a  dream,  is  drawn 
from  analogy,  "  We  are  in  a  continual  delusion  as  to  the  natural 
world  :  Why  not  as  to  the  moral?"  Well :  how  does  he  prove,  that 
we  are  in  a  continual  delusion  as  to  the  natural  world  1  Thus,  All 
the  qualities  which  are  termed  secondary  qualities,  we  by  a  natural 
instinct  ascribe  to  matter.  But  it  is  a  mere  deceit.  They  do  not 
belong  to  matter,  neither  exist  without  it. 

As  commonly  as  this  is  asserted,  it  is  absolutely  false,  as  will  ap- 
pear quickly. 

You  instance  in  colours,  and  confidently  say,  "  All  this  beauty  of 
colours  with  which  heaven  and  earth  appear  to  be  clothed,  is  a  sort  of 
romance  or  illusion.  In  external  objects,  there  is  no  other  distinction 
but  that  of  the  size  and  arrangement  of  their  constituent  parts,  where- 
by the  rays  of  light  are  variously  reflected  or  refracted." 

But  are  those  rays  of  light  real  1  And  do  they  exist  without  us  / 
Certainly,  as  much  as  the  sun  does.  And  are  the  constituent  parts 
of  those  objects  real  1  No  body  questions  it.  But  are  they  really 
such  a  size,  and  arranged  in  such  a  manner  ?  They  are  :  and  what 
will  you  infer  from  that?  I  infer,  that  colour  is  just  as  real  as  size 
or  figure  ;  and  that  all  colours  do  as  really  exist  without  us,  as  trees, 
Or  corn,  or  heaven,  or  earth.  "  But  what  do  you  mean  by  colour?' 
When  I  say,  That  cloth  is  of  a  red  colour,  I  mean,  its  surface  is  so 
disposed  as  to  reflect  the  red  (that  is,  the  largest)  rays  of  light.  When 
I  say,  The  sky  is  blue,  I  mean,  it  is  so  disposed  as  to  reflect  the  blue 
(that  is,  the  smallest)  rays  of  light.  And  where  is  the  delusion  here  1 
Does  not  that  disposition,  do  not  those  rays  as  really  exist,  as  either 
the  cloth,  or  the  sky?  And  are  they  not  as  really  reflected,  as  the 
ball  in  a  tennis  court?  It  is  true,  when  they  strike  upon  my  eye,  a 
particular  sensation  follows  in  my  soul.  But  that  sensation  is  not 
colour :  I  know  one  that  calls  it  so.  Colour  therefore  is  a  real, 
material  thing.  There  is  no  illusion  in  the  case,  unless  you  con- 
found tlie  perception  with  the  thing  perceived.  And  all  other  Se- 
condary qualities  are  just  as  real  as  figure  or  any  other  primary 
one.  So  you  have  no  illusion  in  the  natural  world,  to  countenance 
that  which  you  imagine  to  be  in  the  moral.  Wherever  therefore  this 
argument  occurs,  (and  it  occurs  ten  times  over,)  "  The  natural  world 
is  all  illusion  ;  therefore  so  is  the  moral,"  it  is  just  good  for  nothing. 
But  take  it  altogether,  and  what  a  supposition  is  this  !  Is  it  not 
enough  to  make  one's  blood  run  cold?  "  The  Great  GOD,  the  Creator 
of  heaven  and  earth,  the  Father  of  the  spirits  of  all  flesh,  the  God  of 


THOUGHTS   UrON    NECESSITY.  469 

Truth  has  encompassed  with  falsehood  every  soul  that  he  has  made? 
— Has  given  up  all  mankind  to  a  strong  delusion,  to  believe  a  lie :  yea, 
all  his  creation  is  a  lie,  all  the  natural  and  all  the  moral  world,"  li' 
so,  you  make  GOD  himself,  rather  than  the  Devil,  (iiorrid  thought  i} 
the  Father  of  lies ;  Such  you  doubtless  represent  him,  when  you  sav 
not  only  that  he  has  surrounded  us  with  illusion  on  every  side ;  but 
that  the  feelings  which  he  has  interwoven  with  our  inmost  nature, 
are  equally  illusive  !  That 

"  AH  these  shadows  which  for  things  we  take, 
Are  but  ihe  empty  dreams,  which  in  Death's  sleep  we  make  !" 

And  yet  after  this,  you  make  a  feint  of  disputing,  in  defence  of  f> 
material  world  !  Inconsistency  all  over  !  What  proof  have  we  oi 
this,  what  possible  proof  can  we  have,  if  we  cannot  trust  our  own. 
eyes,  or  ears,  or  any,  or  all  of  our  senses?  But  it  is  certain,  I  can 
trust  none  of  my  senses,  if  I  am  a  mere  machine  For  I  have  the 
testimony  of  all  my  outward  and  all  my  inward  senses,  that  I  am  a 
free  agent.  If  therefore  I  cannot  trust  them  in  this,  I  can  trust 
them  in  nothing.  Do  not  tell  me,  there  are  sun,  moon,  and  stars, 
or  that  there  are  men,  beasts,  or  birds  in  the  world.  I  cannot  be- 
lieve one  tittle  of  it,  if  I  cannot  believe  what  I  feel  in  myself,  namely, 
that  it  depends  on  me,  and  no  other  being,  whether  I  shall  now  open 
or  shut  my  eyes,  move  my  head  hither  and  thither,  or  stretch  my 
hand  or  my  foot.  If  I  am  necessitated  to  do  all  this,  contrary  to  the 
whole,  both  of  my  inward  and  outward  senses,  I  can  believe  nothing 
else,  but  must  necessarily  sink  into  universal  scepticism. 

Let  us  now  weigh  the  main  argument  on  which  this  author  builds 
the  melancholy  hypothesis  of  Necessity.  "  Actions  necessarily  arise 
from  their  several  motives:  therefore  all  human  actions  are  neces- 
sary." Again,  "  In  all  cases  the  choice  must  be  determined,  hy 
that  motive  which  appears  the  best  upon  the  whole.  But  motives 
are  not  under  our  power.  JMan  is  passive  in  receiving  impressions 
of  things,  according  to  which  the  last  judgment  is  necessarily  formed. 
This  the  will  necessarily  obeys,  and  the  outward  action  necessarily 
follows  the  will. 

Let  us  take  this  boasted  argument  in  pieces,  and  survey  it  part  bv 
part.  1.  "  Motives  are  not  under  our  power."  This  is  not  univer- 
sally true.  Some  are,  some  are  not.  That  man  has  a  strong  mo- 
tive to  run  his  neighbour  through,  namely,  violent  anger.  And  yet 
the  action  does  not  necessarily  follow.  Often  it  does  not  follow  at 
all ;  and  where  it  does,  not  necessarily  ;  he  might  have  resisted  thai 
motive.  2.  "  In  all  cases  the  choice  tnust  be  determined  by  that 
motive  which  appears  the  best  upon  the  whole."  This  is  absolutely 
talse.  It  is  flatly  contrary  to  the  experience  of  all  mankind.  Who 
may  not  say  on  many  occasions.  Video  meliora  ?  I  know  what  1  do, 
is  not  "  best  upon  the  whole  V  3.  "  Man  is  passive  in  receiving  the 
impressions  of  things."     Not  altogether.     Even  here  much  depends 

Vol.  9.— R  r 


470  THOUGHTS    I'POIf    KECESSITT, 

on  his  own  choice.  In  many  cases  he  may  or  may  not  receive  the  ini. 
pression  :  in  most  he  may  vary  it  greatly.  4.  "  According  to  these - 
his  last  judgment  is  necessarily  formed.'"  Nay  ;  this  too  depends 
much  upon  his  choice.  Sometimes  his  first,  sometimes  his  last  judg- 
ment, is  according  to  the  impressions  which  he  has  received  :  and 
frequently,  it  is  not.  5.  "  This  the  will  necessarily  obeys."  In- 
deed it  does  not.  The  mind  has  an  intrinsic  power,  of  cutting  off  the 
connexion  between  the  judgment  and  the  will.  G.  "And  the  out- 
ward action  necessarily  Ibilows  the  will."  Not  so.  The  thing  I 
would,  I  do  not,  and  the  thing  1  v.'oidd  not,  that  I  do  Whatever  then 
becomes  of  the  chain  of  events,  this  chain  of  argument  has  not  one 
good  link  belonging  to  it. 

3.  But  allowing  all  he  contends  for,  That  upon  such  vibrations  oi 
the  brain,  such  sensations  directly  follow,  and  indirectly,  (as  the  va- 
rious combinations  and  results  of  them,)  all  our  judgments  and  pas- 
sions,  and  consequently  words  and  actions  :  yet  this  infers  no  neces- 
sity at  all— if  there  be  a  GOD  in  the  world.  Upon  this  the  whole 
matter  turns.     And, 

"  This  circumstance  the  Doctor  had  forgot."  And  so  indeed  have 
almost  the  whole  tribe  of  modern  philosophers.  They  do  not  at  al! 
take  GOD  into  their  account :  they  can  do  their  whole  business  with- 
out him.  But  in  truth  this  their  wisdom  is  their  folly  :  for  no  systeni 
either  of  morality  or  philosophy,  can  be  complete,  unless  GOD  be 
kept  in  view,  from  the  very  beginning  to  the  end.  Every  true  phi 
losopher  will  surely  go  at  least  as  far  as  the  poor  Heathen  Poet, 

'E«  A(©^  ap)^o)fiz^a,  Kai  ev  An  \riycTC  Mwaai, 

"  Muses,  begin  and  end  with  GOD  supreme  i" 

Now  if  there  be  a  GOD,  he  cannot  but  have  all  power  over  every 
creature  that  he  has  made.  He  must  have  equal  power  over  matter 
and  spirits,  over  our  souls  and  bodies.  What  are  then  all  the  vi- 
brations of  the  brain  to  Him]  Or  all  the  natural  consequences  of 
them  1  Suppose  there  be  naturally  the  strongest  concatenation  of 
vibrations,  sensations,  reflections,  judgments,  passions,  actions  ; 
cannot  He  in  a  moment,  Avhenever  and  however  he  pleases,  destro} 
that  concatenation  %  Cannot  he  cut  off,  or  suspend,  in  any  degree, 
the  connexion  between  vibrations  and  sensations  1  Between  sensa- 
tions and  reflections  ?  Between  reflections  and  judgments'?  And  be- 
tween judgments  and  passions  or  actions  ]  We  cannot  have  any  idea 
of  GOD'S  omnipotence,  without  seeing,  he  can  do  this,  if  he  will. 

4.  "If  he  will,  you  may  say,  we  know  he  can.  But  have  we  any 
reason  to  think  he  inllV^  Yes;  the  strongest  reason  in  the  Avorld, 
supposing  that  God  is  Love :  More  especially  suppose  he  is  loving  iu 
every  man,  and  that  his  mercy  is  over  all  his  works.  If  so,  it  cannot 
be,  that  he  should  see  the  noblest  of  his  creatures  under  heaven,  ne- 
cessitated to  do  evil,  and  incapable  of  any  relief  but  from  himselfl 
without  affording  that  relief  It  is  undeniable,  that  he  has  fixed  in 
man,  in  every  man,  his  umpire,  conscience ;  an  inward  judge, 
which  passes  sentence  both  on  his  passions  and  actions,  either  ap- 


THOUGHTS    UPON   GOd's    SOVEREIOKTY.  471 

proving  or  condemning  them.  Indeed  it  has  not  power  to  remove 
what  it  condemns :  it  shows  the  evil  which  it  cannot  cure.  But  the 
OOD  of  Power  can  cme  it:  and  the  GOD  of  Love  ivill, — if  we 
choose  he  should.  But  he  will  no  more  necessitate  us  to  be  happy, 
than  he  will  permit  any  thing  beneath  the  sun  to  lay  us  under  a  ne- 
cessity of  being  miserable.  I  ain  -not  careful  therefore  about  the 
flowing  of  my  blood  and  spirits,  or  the  vibrations  of  my  brain  :  being 
well  assured,  that  however  my  spirits  may  flow,  or  my  nerves  and 
fibres  vibrate,  the  Almighty  GOD  of  Love  can  control  them  all,  and 
will  (unless  I  obstinately  choose  vice  and  misery)  afford  me  such  help, 
as  in  spite  of  all  these,  will  put  it  into  my  power  to  be  virtuous  and 
happy  for  ever. 

Glasgoiv,  May  14,  1774. 


THOUGHTS 

UPON 

GOD'S   SOVEREIGNTY. 


GOD  reveals  himself  under  a  tvp^o-fold  character ;  as  a  Creator, 
and  as  a  Governor.  These  are  no  way  inconsistent  with  each  other . 
but  they  are  totally  different. 

As  a  Creator,  he  has  acted,  in  all  things,  according  to  his  own 
sovereign  will.  Justice  has  not,  cannot  have,  any  place  here ;  for 
nothing  is  due  to  what  has  no  being.  Here  therefore  he  may,  in  the 
most  absolute  sense,  "  do  what  he  will  with  his  own."  Accordingl}', 
he  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth,  and  all  things  that  are  therein, 
in  every  conceivable  respect,  "  according  to  his  own  good  pleasure." 
1.  He  began  his  creation,  at  what  time,  or  rather  at  what  part  of  eter- 
nity, it  seemed  him  good.  Had  it  pleased  him,  it  might  have  been 
millions  of  years  sooner,  or  millions  of  ages  later.  2.  He  deter- 
mined, by  his  sovereign  will,  the  duration  of  the  universe  ;  whether 
it  should  last  seven  thousand,  or  seven  hundred  thousand,  or  number- 
less millions  of  years.  3.  By  the  same,  he  appointed  the  place  of  the 
universe,  in  the  immensity  of  space.  4.  Of  his  sovereign  will,  he- 
determined  the  number  of  the  stars,  of  all  the  component  parts  of  the 
universe,  and  the  magnitude  of  every  atom,  of  every  fixed  star,  every 
planet,  and  every  comet.  5.  As  Sovereign,  he  created  the  earth, 
with  all  the  furniture  of  it,  whether  animate  or  inanimate  ;  and  gave 
to  each  such  a  nature,  with  such  properties.  6.  Of  his  own  gpod 
pleasure,  he  made  such  a  creature  as  man,  and,  in  consequence  oi 
his  spiritual  nature,  endued  him  with  understanding,  will,  and  liberty. 
7.  He  hath  determined  the  times  for  every  nation  to  come  into  being, 


il2  THOUGHTS   UPO.V   GOD's   SOVEKEIGIS'TV. 

with  the  bounds  of  their  habitation.  8.  He  has  allotted  the  time,thr 
place,  the  circumstances,  for  the  birth  of  each  individual. 

"  If  of  parents  I  came, 
That  honour'd  thy  name, 
'Twas  thy  goodness  appointed  it  so." 

vJ.  He  has  given  to  each  a  body  "as  it  pleased  him,  weak  or  strong^, 
healthy  or  sickly.  This  implies.  10.  That  he  gives  them  various  de 
grees  of  understanding,  and  of  knowledge,  diversified  by  numberless 
circumstances.  It  is  hard  to  say,  how  far  this  extends :  what  an 
amazing  difference  there  is,  as  to  the  means  of  improvement,  between 
one  born  and  brought  up  in  a  pious  English  family,  and  one  born  and 
bred  among  the  Hottentots.  Only  we  are  sure  the  difference  cannot 
be  so  great,  as  to  necessitate  one  to  be  good,  or  the  other  to  be  evil ; 
io  force  one  into  everlasting  glory,  or  the  other  into  everlasting  burn- 
ings. This  cannot  be,  because  it  would  suppose  the  character  of  God 
as  a  Creator,  to  interfere  with  God,  as  a  Governor :  wherein  he  does 
not,  cannot  possibly,  act  according  to  his  own  mere  sovereign  will : 
but,  as  he  has  expressly  told  us,  according  to  the  invariable  rules  both 
of  justice  and  mercy. 

Whether  therefore  we  can  account  for  it  or  not,  (which  indeed  we 
cannot  in  a  thousand  cases)  we  must  absolutely  maintain,  that  God 
is  a  rewarder  of  them  that  diligently  seek  him.  But  he  cannot  re- 
ward the  sun  for  shining,  because  the  sun  is  not  a  free-agent.  Nei- 
(her  could  he  reward  us,  for  letting  our  light  shine  before  men,  if  we 
acted  as  necessarily  as  the  sun.  All  reward,  as  well  as  all  punish- 
ment, presupposes  free-agency ;  and  whatever  creature  is  incapable 
of  choice,  is  incapable  of  either  the  one  or  the  other. 

Whenever  therefore  God  acts,  as  a  Governor,  as  a  Rewarder,  or 
Punisher,  he  no  longer  acts  as  a  mere  Sovereign,  by  his  own  sole 
nill  and  pleasure  ;  but  as  an  impartial  Judge,  guided  in  all  things  by 
invariable  justice. 

Yet  it  is  true,  that,  in  some  cases,  Mercy  rejoices  over  Justice : 
although  Severity  never  does.  God  may  reward  more,  but  he  will 
never  punish  more,  than  strict  justice  requires.  It  may  be  allowed 
that  God  acts  as  Sovereign,  in  convincing  some  souls  of  sin  ;  arrest 
ing  them  in  their  mad  career,  by  his  resistless  power.  It  seems  also 
that,  at  the  moment  of  our  conversion,  he  acts  irresistibly.  There 
may  likewise  be  many  irresistible  touches,  during  the  course  of  om 
Christian  warfare  :  with  regard  to  which  every  believer  may  say, 

"  In  the  time  of  my  distress, 
Thou  hast  my  succour  been, 
In  my  utter  helplessness 
Restraining;  me  from  sin." 

But  still,  as  St.  Paul  might  have  been  either  obedient  or  •'  disobedient 
to  the  heavenly  vision,"  so  every  individual  may,  after  all  that  God 
has  done,  either  improve  his  grace  or  make  it  of  none  effect. 

Whatever  therefore  it  hath  pleased  God  to  do,  of  his  Sovereign 
pleasure,  as  Creator  of  heaven  and  earth ;  and  whatever  his  mercy 
]nay  do  on  particular  occasions,  over  and  above  what  justice  requires : 
the  general  rule  stands  firm  as  the  pillars  of  heaven,  "  The  Judge  or 


WHAT   IS   AN  ARMrK^A^'  ?  ANSWEEEir.  473 

all  the  earth  icill do  right."  He  will  "judge  the  world  in  righteous 
ness,"  and  every  man  therein,  according  to  the  strictest  justice.  He 
will  punish  no  man,  lor  doing  any  thing  which  he  could  not  possibly 
avoid  ;  neither  for  omitting  any  thing  which  he  could  not  possibly  do. 
Every  punishment  supposes  the  offender  miglit  have  avoided  the  of- 
fence, for  which  he  is  punished.  Otherwise,  to  punish  him  would  be 
palpably  unjust,  and  inconsistent  with  the  character  of  God  our  Go- 
vernor. 

Let  then  these  two  ideas,  of  God  the  Creator,  the  Sovereign  Cre- 
ator, and  God  the  Governor,  the  Just  Governor,  be  always  kept 
apart.     Let  us  distinguish  them  from  each  other,  with  the  utmost  care. 

So  shall  we  give  God  the  full  glory  of  his  Sovereign  Grace,  with- 
out impeaching  his  inviolable  justice. 


THE  QUESTION, 

WHAT  IS  AN  ARMINIAN? 

ANSWERED. 


i.  TO  say,  "  This  man  is  an  Arminian,"  has  the  same  eftect  on 
many  hearers,  as  to  say,  "  This  is  a  mad  dog."  It  puts  them  into  a 
fright  at  once  :  they  run  away  from  him  with  all  speed  and  diligence : 
and  will  hardly  stop,  unless  it  be  to  throw  a  stone  at  the  dreadfuL 
mischievous  animal. 

2.  The  more  unintelligible  the  word  is,  the  better  it  answers  the 
purpose.  Those  on  whom  it  is  fixed,  know  not  what  to  do  :  not  un- 
derstanding what  it  means,  they  cannot  tell  what  defence  to  make,  ov 
how  to  clear  themselves  from  the  charge.  And  it  is  not  easy  to  re- 
move the  prejudice,  which  others  have  imbibed,  Avho  know  no  more 
of  it,  than  that  it  is  "  something  very  bad,"  if  not  "  all  that  is  bad !" 

3.  To  clear  the  meaning  therefore  of  this  ambiguous  term,  may  bt" 
of  use  to  many :  to  those  who  so  freely  pin  this  name  upon  others^ 
that  they  may  not  say  what  they  do  not  understand :  to  those  that 
hear  them,  that  they  may  be  no  longer  abused  by  men  saying  they 
know  not  what :  and  to  those  upon  whom  the  name  is  fixed,  that  the\ 
may  know  how  to  answer  for  themselves. 

4.  It  may  be  necessary  to  observe,  first,  that  many  confound  Armi- 
nians  with  Arians.  But  tliis  is  entirely  a  different  thing  :  the  one  hat- 
no  resemblance  to  the  other.  An  Arian  is  one  who  denies  the  God- 
head of  Christ :  we  scarcely  need  say,  the  supreme,  eternal  Godhead ; 
because  there  can  be  no  God  but  the  supreme,  eternal  God,  unless 
we  will  make  two  gods,  a  great  god,  and  a  little  one.  Now,  none 
have  ever  more  firmly  believed,  or  more  strongly  asserted,  the  God- 
head of  Christ,  than  manv  of  the  (so  called)  Arminians  have  done, 

Rr2 


V74  WHAT   IS   AN   ARMINIAK  I   ANSWERED. 

yea,  and  do  at  tliis  day.  Arminianism  therefore  (whatever  it  be)  ib 
fotally  different  from  Arianism. 

5.  The  i-ise  of  the  word  was  this,  James  Harmens,  in  Latin,  Jaco- 
bus Arminius,  was  first  one  of  the  ministers  of  Amsterdam,  and 
afterwards  Professor  of  Divinity  at  Leyden.  He  was  educated  at 
Geneva  ;  but  in  the  year  1591 ,  began  to  doubt  of  the  principles  which 
he  had  till  then  received.  And  being  more  and  more  convinced  that 
ihey  were  wrong,  when  he  was  vested  with  the  Professorship,  he-pub- 
iieiy  taught  what  he  believed  of  the  truth,  till  in  the  year  1609,  he 
died  in  peace.  But  a  few  years  after  his  death,  some  zealous  men, 
with  the  Prince  of  Orange  at  their  head,  furiously  assaulted  all  that 
held,  what  were  called,  his  opinions,  and  having  procured  them  to  be 
solemnly  condemned,  in  the  famous  Synod  of  Dort,  (not  so  numerous 
or  learned,  but  fully  as  impartial  as  the  Council,  or  Synod  of  Trent ;) 
some  were  put  to  death,  some  banished,  some  imprisoned  for  life,  all 
turned  out  of  their  employments,  and  made  incapable  of  holding  any 
office,  either  in  church  or  state. 

6.  The  errors  charged  upon  these  (usually  termed  Arminians)  bj 
{heir  opponents,  are  five,  1.  That  they  deny  Original  Sin.  2.  That 
they  deny  Justification  by  Faith.  3.  That  they  deny  Msolute  Predes- 
ihiation.  4.  That  they  deny  the  Grace  of  God  to  be  irresistible ;  and. 
5.  That  they  affirm,  a  believer  mSiy  fall  from  Grace. 

With  regard  to  the  two  first  of  these  charges,  they  plead,  not  guilty. 
They  are  entirely  false  No  man  that  ever  lived,  not  John  Calvin 
himself,  ever  asserted  either  Original  Sin,  or  Justification  by  Faith 
in  more  strong,  more  clear,  and  express  terms,  than  Arminius  has 
done.  These  two  points,  therefore,  are  to  be  set  out  of  the  ques- 
lion  :  in  these  both  parties  agree.  In  this  respect  there  is  not  a  hair's 
l)readth  diflerence  between  Mr.  Wesley  and  Mr.  Whitefield. 

7.  But  there  is  an  undeniable  difference  between  the  Calvinists  and 
Arminians,  with  regard  to  the  three  other  questions.  Here  they  di- 
\'ide  :  the  former  believe  Msolute,  the  latter,  only  Conditional  Predes- 
flnaiion.  The  Calvinists  hold,  1.  God  has  absolutely  decreed,  from 
dl  eternit}',  to  save  such  and  such  persons,  and  no  others,  and  that 
Christ  died  for  these,  and  none  else.  The  Arminians  hold,  God  has 
decreed  from   all  eternity,  touching  all  that  have  the  written  word. 

•  He  that  belie veth  shall  be  saved  :  he  that  believeth  not,  shall  be  con- 
ilemned:"  and  in  order  to  this,  "Christ  died  for  all,  all  that  were 
dead  in  trespasses  and  sins,"  that  is,  for  every  child  of  Adam,  since 
hi  Jldam  all  died. 

8.  The  Calvinists  hold,  Secondly,  That  the  saving  Grace  of  God 
is  absolutely  irresistible :  that  no  man  is  any  more  able  to  resist  it, 
than  to  resist  the  stroke  of  lightning.  The  Arminians  hold,  that, 
although  there  may  be  some  moments  wherein  the  Grace  of  God  acts 
irresistibly,  yet  in  general  any  man  may  resist,  and  that  to  his  eternal 
ruin,  the  Grace  whereby  it  was  the  will  of  God,  he  should  have  been 
eternally  saved. 

9.  The  Calvinists  hold.  Thirdly,  That  a  true  believer  in  Christ, 
i-annot  possibly  fall  from  grace.     The  Arminians  hold,  That  a  true 


WHAT    IS   AN   ARMIMAN  ?   ANSWERED.  475 

believer  may  "  make  shipwreck  of  faith  and  a  good  conscience  ;'• 
that  he  may  fall,  not  only  foully,  hut  finally,  so  as  to  perish  for  ever. 

10.  Indeed  the  two  latter  points,  Irresistible  Grace,  and  Infallible 
Perseverance,  are  the  natural  consequence  of  the  former,  of  the  un- 
conditional decree.  For  if  God  has  eternally  and  absolutely  decreed 
to  save  such  and  such  persons,  it  follows,  both,  that  they  carmot  resist 
his  saving  Grace,  (else  they  might  miss  of  salvation ;)  and  that  they 
cannot  finally  fall  from  that  grace  which  they  cannot  resist.  So  that 
in  effect,  the  three  questions  come  into  one,  "  Is  Predestination  abso- 
lute or  conditional  ?"  The  Arminians  believe,  it  is  conditional ;  the 
Calvinists,  that  it  is  absolute. 

11.  Away  then  with  all  ambiguity:  away  with  all  expressions 
which  only  puzzle  the  cause.  Let  honest  men  speak  out,  and  not 
play  with  hard  words,  which  they  do  not  understand  :  and  how  can 
any  man  know  what  Arminius  held,  who  has  never  read  one  page  of 
his  writings  ?  Let  no  man  bawl  against  Arminians,  till  he  knows 
what  the  term  means.  And  then  he  will  know  that  Arminians  and 
Calvinists  are  just  upon  a  level.  And  Arminians  have  as  much  right 
to  be  angry  at  Calvinists,  as  Calvinists  have  to  be  angry  at  Arminians. 
John  Calvin  was  a  pious,  learned,  sensible  man :  and  so  was  James 
Harmens.  Many  Calvinists  are  pious,  learned,  sensible  men :  and 
so  are  many  Arminians.  Only  the  former  hold  absolute  Predestina- 
tion, the  latter,  conditional. 

13.  One  word  more.  Is  it  not  the  duty  of  every  Arminian  preach- 
er, first,  never  in  public  or  in  private,  to  use  the  word  Calvinist  as 
ii  term  of  reproach  ;  seeing  it  is  neither  better  nor  worse  than  call- 
ing names  ?  A  practice  no  more  consistent  with  good  sense,  or  good 
manners,  than  it  is  with  Christianity.  Secondly,  To  do  all  that  in 
him  lies,  to  prevent  his  hearers  from  doing  it,  by  showing  them  the 
sin  and  folly  of  it  ?  And  is  it  not  equally  the  duty  of  every  Calvinist 
preacher,  First,  never  in  public  or  in  private,  in  preaching,  or  in  con- 
versation, to  use  the  word  Armmian  as  a  term  of  reproach  ?  Se- 
condly, to  do  all  that  in  him  lies,  to  prevent  his  hearers  from  doing  it, 
by  showing  them  the  sin  and  folly  thereof?  And  that  the  more 
earnestly  and  diligently,  if  they  have  been  accustomed  to  do  it  ?  Per- 
haps encouraged  therein  by  his  own  example  '? 


[  476  ] 

SOME  REMARKS 

ON 

MR.  HILL'S  REVIEW  OF  ALL  THE  DOCTRINES 

TAUGHT   BY  MR.   JOHN  WESLEY. 


Humanum  est  nescire  ct  errare. 

Be  calm  in  arguing :  for  fierceness  makes 

Error  a  fault,  and  truth  discourtesy. 

Why  iSiiould  I  feel  another  man's  mistakes, 

More  than  his  sickness  or  infirmity? 

In  lOve  I  should  :  but  anger  is  not  love, 

Nor  wisdom  neither  ;  therefore  gently  move. 

Hf.RBEPvT. 


\.  MR.  HILL  has  an  immense  advantage  over  mc  :  he  abounds  iii 
lime,  and  I  in  business.  I  cannot,  therefore,  undertake  to  write 
page  for  page  ;  I  have  not  leisure,  if  I  had  incHiiation.  And  indeed 
it  is  not  needful.  For  a  full  confutation  of  whatsoever  is  cited  from 
Hie  eleven  Letters  commonly  ascribed  to  Mr.  Hervey,  I  need  only 
refer  to  Mr.  Sellon  ;  who  has  not  only  answered  every  shadow  of  an 
argument,  contained  in  that  poor  piece  of  low  invective,  but  even 
the  reproaches ;  which,  indeed,  he  could  not  pass  over,  without 
passing  over  a  great  part  of  the  book.  If  Mr.  Hill  is  afraid  to  read 
that  answer,  I  am  sorry  for  it.  And  for  whatever  he  advances  on 
particular  redemption,  or  any  of  the  points  connected  therewith,  1 
refer  every  one  who  is  not  afraid  of  the  light,  to  those  three  tracts 
of  Mr.  Sellon,  "  The  Arguments  against  General  Redemption  an- 
swered,'' "  God's  Sovereignty  vindicated  against  Elisha  Coles,"  and 
''  The  Church  of  England  vindicated  from  the  charge  of  Calvinism." 
t  believe  if  Mr.  Hill  had  given  this  last  a  fair  reading,  he  would 
Know  the  17th  Article  is  nothing  to  his  purpose. 

2.  With  regard  to  his  objections  to  Mr.  Fletcher,  I  refer  all 
candid  men  to  his  own  writings  :  his  letters,  entitled,  "  A  First,  Se- 
cond, and  Third  Check  to  Autinomianism :"  the  rather,  because  there 
are  very  few  of  his  arguments  which  Mr.  H.  even  attempts  to  answer. 
It  is  true  he  promises  "  a  full  and  particular  answer  to  Mr.  Fletcher's 
Second  Check  to  Antinomianism."  But  it  will  puzzle  any  one  to 
find  where  that  answer  is,  except  in  the  titiepage.  And  if  any  thing- 
more  is  needful  to  be  done,  Mr.  Fletcher  is  still  able  to  answer  for 
himself.  But  if  he  does,  I  would  recommend  to  his  consideration 
the  advice  formerly  given  by  a  wise  man  to  his  friend,  "  See  that 
vou  humble  not  vourself  to  that  man  :  it  would  hurt  both  him  avA 


SOME   REMAKKS    UPON   JIR.  HILL's   REVIEW,  &C.  477 

the  cause  of  God."  It  is  a  pity  but  he  had  considered  it  sooner,  anC 
he  might  have  escaped  some  keen  reflections.  But  he  did  not :  he 
imagined  when  he  spoice  or  wrote  in  the  simpUcity  of  his  heart,  that 
his  opponents  would  have  received  his  words  in  the  same  spirit 
wherein  they  were  spoken.  No  such  matter :  they  turn  them  all 
into  poison :  he  not  only  loses  his  sweet  words,  but  they  are  turned 
into  bitterness,  are  interpreted  as  mere  sneer  and  sarcasm  !  A  good 
lesson  for  me !  I  had  designed  to  have  transcribed  Mr.  F.'s  charac- 
ter of  Mr.  H.  and  to  have  added  a  little  thereto,  in  hope  of  softening 
his  spirit.     But  I  see  it  is  in  vain  ;  as  well  might  one  hope  to  soften 

•'  Inexorable  Tluto,  king  of  shades  !" 

Since  he  is  capable  of  putting  such  a  construction,  even  upon  Mr, 
F.'s  gentleness  and  mildness;  since  he  ascribes  even  to  him  "  a  pen 
dipped  in  gall,"  what  will  he  not  ascribe  to  me  ?  I  have  done,  there- 
fore, with  humbling  myself  to  these  men,  to  Mi".  H.  and  his  associates. 
I  have  humbled  myself  to  them  for  these  thirty  years  ;  but  will  do  it 
no  more.  I  have  done  with  attempting  to  soften  their  spirits  :  it  is 
all  lost  labour.  Upon  men  of  an  ingenuous  temper.  1  have  been 
able  to  fix  an  obligation.  Bishop  Gibson,  Dr.  Church,  and  even 
Dr.  Taylor  were  obliged  to  me  for  not  pushing  my  advantage.  But 
it  is  not  so  with  these :  whatever  mercy  you  show,  you  are  to  expect 
no  mercy  from  them.  Mercy  did  I  say  1  Alas,  I  expect  no  justice ; 
no  more  than  I  have  found  already.  As  they  have  wrested  and  dis- 
torted my  words  from  the  beginning,  so  1  expect  they  will  do  to  the 
end.  Mr.  H.'s  performance  is  a  specimen !  Such  mercy,  such 
justice  I  am  to  expect ! 

3.  And  does  Mr.  Hill  complain  of  the  unhappy  spirit  in  which  Mr, 
Fletcher  writes  ?  Many  writers  have  done  marvellously :  but  thou 
excellest  them  all !  For  forty  or  fifty  years  have  I  been  a  little  ac- 
quainted with  controversial  writers  ;  some  of  the  Romish  persuasion, 
some  of  our  own  church,  some  dissenters  of  various  denominations. 
And  I  have  found  many  among  them  as  angry  as  he  :  but  one  so 
bitter  I  have  not  found.  Or  one  only,  the  author  of  those  "  excel- 
lent letters,"  as  Mr  H.  styles  them ;  which  he  particularly  admires, 
(that  is  his  word,)  and  the  whole  spirit  of  which  he  has  drank  in. 
This  is  his  peculiar  character,  hi«  distinguishing  grace ;  as  a  writer, 
his  name  is  xoormwood.  Accordingly  he  charges  Mr.  F.  with  a  "  se- 
vere acrimonious  spirit,"  with  "  sneer,  sarcasm,  and  banter,  yea  with 
notorious  falsehoods,  calumny,  and  gross  perversions."  (p.  2.)  Nay, 
"  I  accuse  you,"  says  he,  "  of  the  grossest  perversions  and  misrepre- 
sentations that  ever  proceeded  from  any  author's  pen."  In  the  same 
spirit  he  is  represented,  (p.  21,)  as  "  a  slanderer  of  God's  people 
and  ministers,  descending  to  the  meanest  quibbles,  with  a  bitter, 
railing,  acrimonious  spirit."  And,  p.  27,  (to  go  no  farther,)  as 
•'  using  stratagem  and  ungenerous  artifices."  Although  "  I  have 
treated  i/or«,"  says  Mr.  Hill,  "  with  all  the  politeness  of  a  gentleman, 
and  the  humility  of  a  Christian."  Amazing !  And  has  he  not  treated 
me  so  too  1    At  present,  take  but  one  or  two  instances,     "  Forgeries 


178  SOME   REMARKS   ON   MR.  HILL's  REVIEW 

have  long  passed  for  no  crime  with  Mr.  Weslej ."  (p.  27.)  "  He 
administers  falsehoods  and  damnable  heresies,  rank  poison,  hemlock, 
and  ratsbane.  We  cannot  allow  him  any  other  title  than  that  of  an 
empiric  or  quack  doctor."  (p.  29.)  Which  shall  we  admire  most 
here  !    The  gentleman  or  the  Christian  1 

4.  There  is  something  extremely  odd  in  this  whole  affair.  A  man 
falls  upon  another,  and  gives  him  a  good  beating  ;  who,  in  order  to 
be  revenged,  does  not  grapple  with  /«m,  (perhaps  sensible  that  he  is 
above  his  match,)  but  giving  him  two  or  three  kicks,  falls  upon  a 
third  man  that  was  standing  by.  "  O,  says  he,  but  I  know  that  fel- 
low well ;  he  is  the  second  of  him  that  beat  me."  "  If  he  is,  despatch 
your  business  with  the  former  first,  and  then  turn  to  him."  How- 
ever, if  Mr.  H.  is  resolved  to  fall  upon  me,  I  must  defend  myself  as 
well  as  I  can. 

5.  From  the  spirit  and  manner  wherein  he  writes,  let  us  now  pro- 
ceed to  the  matter.  But  that  is  so  various,  and  scattered  up  and 
down  for  a  hundred  and  fifty  pages,  without  much  order  or  connex- 
ion, that  it  is  difficult  to  know  where  to  begin.  However  all  tends 
to  one  point ;  the  good  design  of  the  writer  is  to  blacken.  With  this 
laudable  view,  he  observes  the  old  rule,  "  throw  dirt  enough,  and 
some  will  stick."  Knowing  that  the  mud  may  be  thrown  in  a  trice  ; 
but  it  will  take  time  and  pains  to  scrape  it  off.  Indeed  he  takes  true 
pains  to  fasten  it  on  ;  to  represent  Mi .  W.  as  a  knave  and  a  fool ;  a 
man  of  no  conscience,  and  no  understanding.  It  is  true  the  latter  is 
insisted  on  most  at  large ;  by  a  hundred  instances  Mr  H.  has  made 
it  plain  to  all  the  world,  that  Mr.  W.  never  had  three  grains  of  com- 
mon sense  ;  that  he  is  the  veriest  weathercock  that  ever  was  ;  that 
he  has  not  wit  enough  to  be  fixed  in  any  thing,  but  is  "  tost  to  and 
fro  continually  ;"  "  that  he  is  to  this  very  moment  so  absolutely  un- 
settled with  regard  to  every  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  gospel,  that 
no  two  disputants  in  the  schools  can  be  more  opposite  to  each  other 
than  he  is  to  himself." 

6.  But  some  may  naturally  ask,  What  is  the  matter?  What  makes 
Mr.  H.  so  warm  ?  What  has  Mr.  W.  done,  that  this  gentleman,  this 
Christian,  ita  gladiatorio  animo  ad  eum  aj^ectat  viam  ?  That  he  falls 
upon  him  thus  outrageously,  dagger  out  of  sheath,  without  either 
rhyme  or  reason  1  U,  the  matter  is  plain.  Besides  that  he  is  Mr. 
F.'s  friend,  he  is  an  Arminian  :  and  nothing  is  bad  enough  for  an 
Arminian,  An  Arminian !  What  is  that  ]  "I  cannot  tell  exactly  : 
but  to  be  sure  it  is  all  that  is  bad.  For  a  Popish  friar,  a  Benedictine 
monk,  bears  witness,  (and  Mr.  H  avers  the  same,)  that  the  tenets 
of  the  church  of  Rome  are  nearer  by  half  to  Calvinism  than  to  Ar- 
minianism ;  nearer  by  half  to  Mr.  H.'s  tenets  than  to  Mr.  W.'s." 
Truly  I  always  thought  so.  But  still  1  ask.  What  is  an  Arminian  1 
Why,  in  other  words,  an  election-doubter.  And  the  "good  old 
preacher,"  (says  Mr.  H.)  "  places  all  election-doubters,  (i.  e.  those 
who  are  not  clear  in  the  belief  of  absolute  predestination,)  among 
the  numerous  hosts  of  the  Diabolonians.  One  of  these  being  brought 
before  the  judge,  the  judge  tells  hun,  To  question  election,  is  tQ 


or  ALL  BIR.  Wesley's  doctrines.  47? 

overthrow  a  great  doctrine  of  the  gospel. — Therefore  he,  the  elec- 
tion-doubter, must  die,"  (p.  37.)  That  is  plainly,  he  must  die  eter- 
nally, for  this  damnable  sin.  The  very  same  thing  Mr.  H.  affirms 
elsewhene,  ^p.  39,)  "  The  only  cement  of  Christian  union  is  the  love 
of  God,  and  the  foundation  of  that  love  must  be  laid  in  believing  the 
truths  of  God  ;"  (thai  is,  you  must  believe  particular  redemption,  or  it 
is  impossible  you  should  love  God,)  for,  to  use  "  The  words  of  Dr. 
Owen,  in  his  Display  of  Arminianism,  (see  the  truths  which  Mr.  H, 
means!)  an  agreement  without  truth  is  no  peace,  but  a  covenant 
with  death,. and  a  conspiracy  against  the  kingdom  of  Christ." 

7.  I  am  sorry  Mr.  H.  should  think  so.  But  so  long  as  he  re- 
mains in  that  sentiment,  what  peace  am  I,  or  Mr.  F.,  or  indeed  any 
Arminian,  to  expect  from  him  1  Since  any  agreement  with  us  would 
be  "  a  covenant  with  death,  and  a  conspiracy  against  the  kingdom 
of  Christ."  I  therefore  give  up  all  hopes  of  peace  with  him,  and 
with  all  that  are  thus  minded.  For  I  do  not  believe  what  he  terms 
the  truths  of  God,  the  doctrine  of  absolute  predestination.  I  never 
did  believe  it,  nor  the  doctrines  connected  with  it,  no,  not  for  an  hour. 
In  this,  at  least,  I  have  been  consistent  with  myself.  I  have  never 
varied  a  hair's  breadth  :  I  cannot,  while  I  believe  the  Bible,  while  I 
believe  either  the  Old  or  New  Testament.  What  I  do  believe, 
and  always  have  believed  in  this  matter,  I  will  declare  with  all  sini- 
plicity. 

"1.  I  believe  no  decree  of  reprobation.  I  do  not  believe  the 
Father  of  spirits  ever 

"  Consign'd  one  unborn  soul  to  hell, 

Or  danin'il  him  from  his  mother's  womb." 

"  2.  I  believe  no  decree  of  preterition,  which  is  only  reprobation 
whitewashed.  I  do  not  believe  God  ever  sent  one  man  into  the 
world,  to  whom  he  had  decreed,  never  to  give  that  grace,  whereby 
alone  he  could  escape  daimiation. 

"  3.  I  do  not  believe,  (what  is  only  preterition,  or  reprobation  in 
other  words,)  any  such  absolute  election,  as  implies  that  all  but  the 
absolutely  elect  shall  inevitably  be  damned. 

"4.  1  do  not  believe  the  doctrine  of  irresistible  grace,  or  of  infalli- 
ble perseverance ;  because  both  the  one  and  the  other  implies  that 
election,  which  cannot  stand  without  preterition  or  reprobation. 

"  5.  I  do  not  believe  salvation  by  ivorks.  Yet  if  any  man  can 
prove,  (what  I  judge  none  ever  did,  or  ever  will,)  that  there  is  no 
medium  between  this  and  absolute  predestination ;  I  will  rather 
subscribe  to  this  than  to  that,  as  far  less  absurd  of  the  two." 

8.  Ilinc  nice  lachrymce.  Here  is  the  source  of  Mr.  H.'s  implaca- 
ble hatred  to  me.  And  hence  arises  his  vehement  displeasure  at 
those  Minutes,  which  Mr.  Shirley  and  he  style  "  dreadful  heresy." 
The  appellation  is  just,  suppose  (as  Mr.  H.  asserts)  all  election- 
doubters  are  Diabolonians  :  suppose  no  man  who  is  "  not  clear  in  the 
belief  of  absolute  predestination,"  can  love  either  God  or  his  neigh- 
bour. For  it  is  certain  the  doctrine  of  the  Minutes  and  of  the  JDe- 
i^recs  cannot  stand  tos^ether.     If  the  doctrine  of  the  decrees  stands> 


480  SOME  REMABKS  ON  MK.  HILL's  REVIEW 

then  that  of  the  minutes  must  fall ;  for  we  willingly  allow,  that  the 
one  is  incompatible  with  the  other.  If  the  doctrine  of  the  minutes 
stands,  then  that  of  the  decrees  must  fall.  For  it  is  manifest  that 
this,  particularly  the  last  article,  strikes  at  the  very  root  ot»  Calvin- 
ism. Of  what  consequence  is  it  then,  to  one  who  is  persuaded  the 
belief  of  Calvinism  is  essential  to  salvation,  to  expose  those  Minutes 
to  the  uttermost,  as  well  as  any  that  dares  to  defend  them  1 

9.  In  order  to  this  good  end,  Mr.  H.  publishes  *<  A  RevicAv  of  all 
the  Doctrines  taught  by  Mr.  John  Wesley."  But  is  it  possible  for 
any  man  to  do  this,  without  reading  all  the  writings  that  I  have  pub- 
lished "?  It  is  not  possible  in  the  nature  of  things  :  he  cannot  give 
an  account  of  what  he  never  read.  And  has  Mr.  H.  read  all  that  I 
have  published  ?  I  believe  he  will  not  affirm  it.  So  any  man  of  un- 
derstanding may  judge,  before  he  opens  his  book,  what  manner  of 
review  it  is  likely  to  contain  !  However,  it  must  be  owned  that  he 
and  his  faithful  allies  have  been  at  the  pains  of  looking  into  many  of 
my  writings.  I  say  many  :  for  1  apprehend  there  are  many  more, 
which  they  have  not  so  much  as  looked  into ;  nor  does  it  appear  that 
they  have  seriously  looked  through  any,  so  as  to  observe  the  scope 
and  tenor  of  them.  However,  from  those  which  he  or  they  have, 
after  a  fashion,  reviewed,  abundance  of  objections  are  extracted. 
It  is  true,  none  of  them  (one  only  excepted)  are  new,  and  there  is 
hardly  one  that  has  not  been  answered  again  and  again.  Yet  since 
they  are  proposed  in  a  new  form,  they  may  seem  to  demand  a  new 
answer. 

10.  The  grand  objection  is,  that  I  am  inconsistent  with  myself 
This  therefore  I  shall  particularly  consider.  The  others,  which  flut- 
ter up  and  down  the  whole  work,  I  can  but  just  touch  upon.  Mr. 
H.  opens  the  charge  thus :  "  Saying  and  unsaying  is  nothing  new 
with  Mr.  W.,  w^ho  has  only  shown  himself  consistent,  by  a  regular 
series  of  inconsistencies."  (p.  3.)  "How  full  are  you  of  contra- 
dictions to  yourself !  How  full  of  contrary  purposes  !  How  often 
do  you  chide  with  yourself!  How  oft  do  you  fight  with  yourself!" 
(Titlepage.)  "  Mr.  W,  seems  well  contented  you  should  settle 
his  creed.  If  you  can,  you  will  do  in  a  i^w  months,  what  he  him- 
self has  not  been  able  to  effect  in  near  forty  years,"  "  On  this 
fluctuating  ocean  he  has  been  tossed  for  so  many  years  together." 
(p.  20. )  "  All  his  Journals  and  Tracts  are  replete  with  proofs  of  his 
having  been  tossed  from  one  system  to  another,  and  from  one  opi- 
nion to  another,  from  the  time  of  his  ordination  to  this  present  mo- 
ment." (p.  143.)  "The  most  ignorant  collier  can  immediately  see 
his  inconsistency  with  himself"  (p,  145.)  He  sums  up  the  whole 
charge  in  the  lively  words  of  Mr,  Cudworth,  graced  with  the  name 
of  Mr.  Hervey  :  "  Contradiction,  didst  thou  ever  know  so  trusty  a 
friend,  so  faithful  a  devotee  ?  Many  people  are  ready  enough  to 
contradict  others.  But  it  seems  all  one  to  this  gentleman  whether 
it  be  another  or  himself,  so  he  may  but  contradict," 

11.  To  prove  this  indictment,  (urged  home  enough,  though  there 
is  not  one  tittle  of  truth  in  it)  Mr.  H.  has  cited  no  less  than  a  hini- 


OF  ALL  MR.  WESLtv's  DOCTKINSS.  481 

ilt.'ed  and  one  witnesses.*  Before  I  enter  upon  the  examination  oi 
these,  I  beg  leave  to  transcribe  what  I  wrote  some  time  smce  to  Dr. 
Rutherforth.  "  You  frequently  charge  me  with  evasion ;  and  others 
have  brought  the  same  charge.  The  plain  case  is  this,  I  have  writ- 
ten on  various  heads,  and  always  as  clearly  as  I  could.  Yet  iiiany 
have  misunderstood  my  words,  and  raised  abundance  of  objections. 
I  answered  them  by  explaining  myself,  showing  what  I  did  not  mean, 
and  what  I  did.  One  and  another  of  the  objectors  stretched  his 
throat,  and  cried  out,  '  Evasion  !  Evasion  !'  And  v/hat  does  all  this 
outcry  amount  to  1  Why  exactly  thus  much.  They  imagined  they 
had  tied  me  so  fast,  that  it  was  impossible  for  me  to  escape.  But 
presently  the  cobwebs  were  swept  away,  and  I  was  quite  at  liberty. 
And  I  bless  God  I  can  vmravel  truth  and  falsehood,  although  artfully 
twisted  together.  Of  such  evasion  I  am  not  ashamed.  Let  theni 
be  ashamed  who  constrain  me  to  use  it." 

1 2.  Mi\  H.'s  numerous  proofs  of  my  contradicting  myself,  may  be 
ranged  under  tweyity-four  heads.  I  shall  examine  these  one  by  one. 
in  what  appears  to  me  to  be  the  most  natural  order. 

I. 


1.  There  was  an  everlasting 
covenant  between  God  the  Father 
and   God   the   Son,   concerning 


There  never  was  any  siich 
covenant  between  God  the 
Father     and     God     the      Son. 


man's  redemption.  J  (p.  128.) 

The  latter  of  these  I  beUeve,  and  always  did,  sincC  1  could  read 
my  Bible. 

But  Mr.  H.  brings  a  passage  out  of  the  Christian  Library,  to  con- 
tradict this.  On  which  he  parades  as  follows:  "  If  the  Christian  Li- 
brary be,  as  Mr.  W.  afhrms,  all  true,  all  agreeable  to  the  word  oj  God, 
(hen  ichat  are  tve  to  think  of  his  other  works?  They  must  be  an  adul- 
teration of  man's  devising."  (p.  128.)  "  The  same  may  be  said  of  tlic 
Minutes  :  if  these  be  truly  orthodox,  upwards  oJ  forty  volumes  of  the 
Library  must  be  thoroughly  heterodox.  And  then  there  is  great  rea- 
son to  lament,  that  so  many  poor  people's  pockets  should  be  fleeced 
lor  what  can  do  their  souls  no  good."' 
•  Peremptory  enough!  But  let  us  examine  the  matter  more  closely. 
•'  Mr.  W.  affirms,  that  the  Christrian  Library  is  all  true,  all  agreeablt 
fo  the  word  of  God.^'  I  do  not ;  and  1  am  glad  I  have  this  public 
opportunity,  of  explaining  myself  concerning  it.  My  words  are, 
(Preface,  p.  4,)  "  I  have  made,  as  I  was  able,  an  attemptof  thiskind. 
1  have  endeavoured  to  extract  such  a  collection  of  English  divinity, 
as  /  believe,  is  all  true,  all  agreeable  to  the  oracles  of  God."  I  did  be- 
lieve, and  I  do  believe  every  tract  therein  to  be  true,  and  agreeable  to  the 
oracles  of  God.  But  I  do  not  roundly  affirm  this,  (as  Mr.  H.  asserts,) 
of  every  sentence  contained  in  the  fifty  volumes.  I  could  not  possibly 
affirm  it  for  two  reasons,  1. 1  was  obliged  to  prepare  most  of  those  tracts 

*  Tbe  very  number  of  propositions  extracted  out  of  Quesiiell's  writings,  and  con- 
demned "  as  dreadful  heresies,"  in  the  Bull  Unigenitus  t  Exemplum  placet .'  See  ho«v 
good  wits  jump  !  Mr.  H.,  Father  Walsh,  and  the  Pope  of  Rome  ! 

Vol,  9.— S  s 


182  SOME   BEMABKS    ON    MK.    IIILL's   REVIEW 

for  the  press  just  as  I  could  snatch  time  in  travelling,  nor  transcribing; 
them  ;  (none  expected  it  of  me,)  but  only  marking  the  lines  with  my 
pen,  and  altering  or  adding  a  few  words  here  and  there,  as  I  had  men- 
tioned in  the  preface.  2.  As  it  was  not  in  niy  po^/er  to  attend  the 
press,^that  care  necessarily  (ievolved  on  others,  through  whose  inat- 
tention a  hundred  passages  were  left  in,  which  1  had  scratched  out . 
yet  not  so  many  as  to  make  up  "  forty  volumes,"  no,  nor  forty- 
pages.  It  is  probable  too,  I  myself  might  overlook  some  sentencep. 
which  were  not  suitable  to  my  own  prmciples.  It  is  certain,  the 
correctors  of  the  press  did  this,  in  not  a  few  instances.  I  shall  be 
much  obhged  to  Mr.  H.  and  his  friends,  if  they  will  point  out  all  those 
instances ;  and  I  will  print  them  as  an  hiclex  Expurgatorius  to  the 
work,  which  will  make  ir  doubly  valuable. 

The  plain  inference  is,  if  there  are    a  hundred   passages  in  the 
Christian  Library,  which  contradict  any  or  all  of  my  doctrines,  these 
are  no  proof  that  I  contradict  myself.     Be  it  observed,  once  for  all 
therefore,  citations,  from   the  Christian  Library,  .prove  nothing  but 
the  carelessness  of  the  correctors. 

II. 

For  election  and  perseverance.  I      Against  election  and  perseve- 

i  ranee,  (p.  101.) 

2.  Mr.  Sellon  has  clearly  showed  that  the  17th  article,  does  not 
assert  absolute  predestination.  Therefore  in  denying  this,  I  neither 
contradict  that  article,  nor  myself. 

3.  I  believe  there  is  a  state  at-  But  I  never  thought  a  babe  in 
tainable  in  this  life,  from  which  a  Christ  was  in  that  state,  though  he 
man  cannot  finally  fall.  is  a  true  believer. 

4.  Saved  beyond  the  dread  of  So  says  my  brother.  That  is 
falling.  nothing  to  me. 

The  note  adds,  "  Mr.  W.  drew  lots,  whether  or  not  he  should 
preach  against  the  17th  article." 

That  paltry  story  is  untrue.  Though  Mr.  H.  potently  believes 
it.  So  all  the  witticisms  built  upon  it,  fall  to  the  ground  at  once.  I 
never  preached  against  the  17th  article,  nor  had  the  least  thought 
of  doing  it.  But  did  Mr.  Hill  never  preach  against  the  31st  article, 
which  exphcitly  asserts  universal  redemption? 


5.  I  do  not  deny,  that  those 
eminently  styled  the  elect,  shall  in- 
fallibly persevere. 

G.  The  love  divine, 

Which  made  us  thine, 
Shall  keep  us  thine  for  ever. 

7.  From  all  eternity  with  love. 
Unchangeable    thou    hast   me 

view'd. 

8.  Never  again  will  he  take 
him  away. 


I  mean,  those  that  are  perfected 
in  love,  (1  John  iv.  17,)  and  those 
only.  So  here  is  no  contradiction. 

So  my  brother  speaks.  But 
his  words  cannot  prove  that  /con- 
tradict myself. 

I  believe  this  is  true  on  the 
supposition  of  faith  foreseen,  not 
otherwise. 

They  are  my  brother's  words, 
not  mine. 


OP    ALL    ^SR.   WESI,KY  S    DOCTRINES, 


483 


S.  Jesus  the  lover  of  his  own, 
will  love  me  to  the  end. 

10.  Christ  is  in  the  elecl  ivorld 
of  his  church. 


So  are  these. 

This  is  cited  from  the  Chrisiian 
Library,     So  it  goes  for  nothing. 


.The  nine  witnesses  therefore  examined  on  this  head,  prove  jusi 
Slothing  at  all.  So  that  hitherto  there  is  not  the  least  proof,  that  1 
"ontradict  myself. 

III. 

Against  imputed  righteousness 
Do  not  dispute  for  that  parti- 
cular phrase.     Here  is  no  contra- 
diction.    I  do  not  deny  it ;  yet  I 


For  imputed  righteousness. 

11.  We  no  more  deny  the 
phrase  (of  imputed  righteousness) 
than  the  thins?. 


12,  This  doctrine  I  have  be- 
lieved and  taught,  for  near  eight 
and  twenty  years.  . 


dare  not  dispute  for  it. 

The  use  of  that  term  has  done 
immense  hurt. 

It  has  :  but  here  is  no  contra- 
diction. 

So  it  goes  foi 


13.  This  is  a  citation  from  the  Christian  Library 
nothing. 

14.  <  I  continually  affirm,  that 
the  righteousness  of  Christ  (in  the 
sense  there  explained)  is  imputed 
to  every  believer. 

15.  This  is  another  citation  from  the   Christian  Library 
proves  nothing.  • 

16.  The  wedding  garment  is 
Christ's  righteousness,  first  impu- 
ted, and  then  implanted. 

17.  This  is  consistent  with  our 
being  justified  through  the  impu- 
tation of  Christ's  righteousness. 


Where  is  the  use  of  contending 
so  strenuously  for  those  expressions? 
I  ask  it  again.  But  where  is  the 
contradiciion. 

So  i^ 


The  wedding  garment  is  holi- 
ness.— This  does  not  exclude,  but 
presupposes  the  other. 

John  Goodwin  contradicts  this. 
Perhaps  so.  But  John  Goodwin 
IS  not  John  Wesley.  Whatevei 
therefore  he  says, 
(observe  it  once  for  all ! )  does  not  prove,  that  I  contradict  myself.  I 
am  no  way  engaged,  to  defend  every  expression  o(  either  John  Good- 
win or  Richard  Baxter's  Aphorisms.  The  sense  of  both  1  generally 
approve,  the  language  many  times  I  do  not. 

But  I  observe  here,  and  in  fifty  other  instances,  Mr.  H.  mentions 
no  page.  Now  (in  controversy)  he  that  names  no  page,  has  no  right 
to  any  answer. 


18.  I  frequently  piit  this  ex- 
])ression  into  the  mouth  of  a  whole 
congregation :  that  is,  i  sing  a 
hymn  wherein  it  occurs. 


I  dare  not  require  any  to  use  it. 
— True  ;  but  here  is  no  contra- 
diction. I  do  not  require  any  to 
use  it.  Every  one  ni  the  con- 
gregation may  use  or  let  it  alone. 
Here  comes  in  a  thundering  note,  "  Although  most  of  these  ex- 
tracts from  Mr.  W,  s  sermon  on  Jer,  xxiii,  6,  have  a  very  evangelical 


184  so:me  remarks  oy  mk.  hill's  revie^v 

appearance,  yet  all  their  excellency  vanisheth  mcay,  when  we  are  tolo 
in  the  same  sermon,  that  the  righteousness  he  contends  for,  is  not  the 
divine  righteousness  of  Christ,  but  his  human  righteousness.  When 
we  consider  the  express  wor^ls  of  the  text.  The  Lord  our  Righteous- 
ness, one  might  wonder  (if  any  thing  is  to  be  wondered  at  that  Mr, 
W.  affirnis)  hov/  he  could  possibly  fall  into  an  error,  which  at  once 
not  only  destroys  the  meritorious  efficacy  of  the  Redeemer's  right- 
eousness, but  undermines  the  virtue  of  his  atoning  blood."  This  is 
home :  Mr.  H.  has  broken  my  head  sadly.  But  he  will  soon  give  mc 
a  plaster:  "  However,  if  Mr.  W.  will  acknowledge,  that  by  Christ's 
human  righteousness  he  means  that  mediatorial  righteousness  which 
was  wrought  by  God  in  the  human  nature,  I  entirely  acquiesce  with 
him  on  the  point."  This  is  truly  marvellous  !  Why  what  could  Mr 
W.  mean  beside  ?  So  this  error  proves  to  be  no  error  at  all !  And  alt 
the  excellency  which  vanished  away,  appears  again  in  statu  quo  ! 

But  we  are  not  come  to  the  end  of  the  note  yet,  it  contains  another 
dreadful  objection.  "Mr.  W.  is  unwilling"  (tndy  I  am)  "to  be 
ranked  among  the  Diaholonians,  and  therefore  with  more  prudence 
than  candour,  has  left  the  whole  passage  concerning  the  Election- 
doubters,  out  of  the  Holy  War."  And  if  Mr.  H.  had  omitted  it  too, 
it  wou'd  have  been  no  more  an  impeachment  of  his  prudence,  than 
it  was  of  my  candour,  to  omit  in  all  the  tracts  I  abridged,  whatever  I 
disapproved  of.  This  was  what  I  professed  at  my  setting  out.  "  I 
have  endeavoured  (these  are  my  very  words)  "to  preserve  a  con- 
sistency throughout,  that  no  part  might  contradict  any  other.  But 
in  order  to  this,  I  have  been  obliged  to  omit  the  far  greatest  part  of 
several  authors. — And  in  a  design  of  this  nature  1  apprehend  mysell 
to  be  at  full  liberty  so  to  do,"  (Preface,  p.  5.)  The  air? rfg-ec?  Buny an 
is  not  therefore  "the  counterfeit  Bunyan."  This  is  a  flourish  of  Mr. 
H.'s  pen. 

1 9.  This  instance  sets  nothing  against  nothing,  the  Christian  Li^ 
brary  against  John  Goodwin. 

20.  This  is  an  emblem  of  the] 
righteousness  of  the  saints,  both  of 
their  justification  and  sanctifica- 
tion. 


21.  I  would  address  myself  to 
you,  who  are  so  ready  to  con- 
demn all  that  use  these  expressions 
as  Jlntinomians. 


John  Goodwin  contradicts  this. 
So  he  may  :  but  I  am  not  John 
Goodwin.  So  we  have  examined 
twenty  witnesses ;  and  not  one  of 
all  these  proves,  that  I  contradict 
myself. 

On  Mr.  Hervey's  using  one  of 
them,  Mr.  W.  says.  Why  are  you 
at  such  pains  to  increase  the  num- 
ber of  Antinomians  ? 


But  I  do  not  condemn  him  as  an  Antinomian.    Therefore  here  is  no 
contradiction. 

22.  Again.  Is  not  this,  that 
Christ  has  satisfied  the  demands  oj^ 
the  law,  the  very  quintessence  of 
Jlntinomianism  ? 


OP   ALL   MR.   WESLEY  S  DOCTIUNES. 


486 


.     Whether  it  is  or  not,  it  is  wide  of  the  mark :  for  this  is  none  of  the 
expressions  in  question. 

23.  Again.  To  say  the  claims  oj 
the  law  are  all  answered,  is  not  this 
Antinomianism  without  a  mask  ? 

Yes;  but  it  is  none  of  the  expressions  in  question.     So  it  is  no  con- 
radiction. 

24.  Once  more.  There  are 
many  expressions  in  this  dialogue, 
which  directly  lead  to  Antinomi- 
anism 1 

So  I  think.  Yet  I  do  not  condemn  all  that  use  them,  as  ^ntinomians. 
iio  here  is  no  contradiction  still. 


25.  It  is  by  faith  we  build  on 
this  foundation,  the  imputed  right- 
eousness of  Christ, 


If  faith  in  the  imputed  right- 
eousness of  Christ  is  a  fundamen- 
tal principle,  what  becomes  of  all 
those  who  think  nothing  about  im- 
puted righteousness  ? 
Mere  is  no  contradiction.     Suppose  I  build  my  faith  on  this  foun- 
dation, the  imputed  righteousness  of  Chi-iSt,  it  does  not  follow,  it  is  so 
fundamental  a  principle,  that  all  who  think  nothing  about  it,  will  bo 
•damned. 

26.  But    is    not    a    believer        Goodwin,  i.  e.  Nothing, 
clothed  with  the  righteousness  of 
Christ  1  Undoubtedly  he  is. 

27.  The  mantle  of  Christ's 
lighteousness.   Christian  Library. 

28.  Christian  Library. 

29.  The  sole  cause  of  our 
acceptance  with  God  is  the  right- 
eousness, and  the  death  of  Christ, 
who  fulfilled  God's  laic,  and  died 
in  our  stead. 

Undoubtedly  it  was.  Therefore,  although  I  believe  Christ  fulfilled 
God's  law,  yet  I  do  not  affirm  he  did  this,  to  purchase  redemption  for 
us.     This  was  done  by  his  dying  in  our  stead. 


Goodwin  again.  Nothing 
against  nothing. 

Nothing. 

I  cannot  prove,  that  it  was  re- 
quisite for  Christ  io  fulfil  the  moral 
law,  in  order  to  his  purchasing  re- 
demption for  us.  By  his  suffer- 
ings alone  the  law  was  satisfied. 


Let  him  answer. 
John  Goodwin. 

Ditto. 


Nothing. 


30.  Verses  of  C.W, 

31,  32,   33.     Title    to    Life. 
Christian  Library.     Nothing. 

34.  The  righteousness  of  Christ 
s  imputed  to  every  one  that  be- 
lieves. 

Here  follows  another  thun.^jering  note:  '-When  Mr.  Weslej 
preached  this  sermon,  he  tol<ithe  congregation,  //  ims  the  same  doc- 
irine  which  Mr.  Roinaine.,  Mr.  Madan,  and  Mr.  JVhitefield,  preach- 
ed." So  it  was;  Mr,  Wh.  did,  Mr.  R.  and  Mr.  Madan  do  preach 
the  doctrine  contained  in  that  sermon,  namelv,  that  "  we  are  iustifi^ 

S  s  2 


486  SOME   REMARKS    OJT   MR.    HILl's    REVIEW 

ed,  sanctified,  and  glorified,  merely  for  the  sake  of  what  Christ  lia? 
done  and  suffered  for  us."  But  did  I  say,  this  was  all  the  doctrin*'. 
which  they  preached  1  No  ;  and  no  man  in  his  senses  could 
understand  me  so.  I  did  not  therefore  "  impose  on  the  credulity  oi 
my  hearers,  by  making  them  believe" any  more  than  was  strictly  true. 
But  "  did  they  ever  hold  the  tenets  pleaded  for  in  the  books  pub- 
lished by  Mr.  W.  V  Whether  they  did  or  not,  is  out  of  the  present 
question:  they  did  and  do  hold  the  doctrine  contained  in  that  ser- 
mon. "  Mr.  W.  knows,  they  from  their  hearts  subscribe  to  Mr, 
Hervey's  eleven  letters."  I  hope  not :  from  any  that  do,  I  expect  no 
more  mercy  than  from  a  mad  dog. . "  But  if  he  had  constantly  preach- 
ed that  doctrine,  how  came  so  many  to  testify  their  surprise  at  that 
discourse'?"  Because  God  set  it  home  upon  their  hearts.  Hence  it 
appeared  new,  though  they  had  heard  it  over  and  over.  "  How  cani? 
they  to  press  the  printing  of  it,  in  order  to  stop  the  mouths  of  gain- 
sayersl"  Because  they  judged  it  would  affect  others  as  it  affected 
them  ;  though  I  never  thought  it  would.  "Lastly,  if  Mr.  W.  had 
constantly  maintained  this  doctrine,  why  must  poor  John  B«nyan  be 
embowelled,  to  make  him  look  like  Mr,  W.  ?"  No  :  his  Calvinism  i;^ 
omitted,  to  make  him  like  the  authors  going  before  him  ;  "  to  pre- 
serve a  consistency  throughout  the  work  :"  which  still  is  not  done  a^ 
I  could  wish.  However,  those  that  are  fond  of  his  bowels  may  put 
them  in  again,  and  swallow  them  as  they  would  the  trail  of  a  wood- 
cock. 


35.  They  to  whom  the  right- 
eousness of  Christ  is  imputed,  (I 
mean,  who  truly  believe,)  are 
made  righteous  by  the  Spirit  of 
Christ. 


The  nice,  metaphysical  docr 
trine  of  imputed  righteousness,  in- 
stead of  furthering  men  in  holi- 
ness, makes  them  satisfie.d  with- 
out any  holiness"  at  all. 


I  have  known  a  thousand  instances  of  this.  And  yet  "  they  who 
truly  beheve  in  Christ  are  made  righteous  by  his  Spirit."  Where  is 
the  contradiction  between  these  propositions  ? 

36.  Christian  Library. 

37.  Christ   is  now    the   right- 
eousness of  all  that  truly  believe. 


Nothing. 


Baxter's    Aphorisms     go    foi- 
nothing.     Richard  Baxter  is  not 
J.  W. 
Nothing. 


Goodwin.     Nothing. 


■38,  39,  40,  I  Nothing 

41,  42,  43,  J  against 

44.  To  all  believers  the  right- 
eousness of  Christ  is  imputed. 

We  have  now  examined  four  and  forty  witnesses  :  but  still  have 
no  proof,  that  I  contradict  myself,  either  with  regard  to  the  covenani 
election,  2ind  perseverance,  or  the  imputed  righteousness  of  Christ.  With 
regard  to  Ihis,  the  thing  that  we  are  justified  merely  for  the  sake  of 
what  Christ  has  Jone  and  suffered,  I  have  constantly  and  earnestly 
maintained,  above  four  and  thirty  years.  And  I  have  frequently 
jised  the  phrase,  hoping  thereby  to  please  others,  for  their  good  to  edi- 
fication. But  it  has  had  a  contrary  effect,  since  so  many  improve  it 
r  nto  an  objection.   Therefgra  I  will  use  it  no  more,  unless  it  occur  m  ti 


OP  ALL  MB.  Wesley's  doctrines. 


487 


hymn,  or  steal  upon  me  unawares  :  I  will  endeavour  to  use  only  such 
phrases  as  are  strictly  scriptural.  And  I  will  advise  all  my  brethren^ 
all  who  are  in  connexion  with  me  throughout  the  three  kingdoms, 
to  lay  aside  that  ambiguous,  unscriptural  phrase,  which  is  so  liable 
to  be  misinterpreted,  and  to  speak  in  all  instances,  this  in  particular, 
as  the  oracles  of  God. 

IV. 

Suffering  the  penalty  is  all  the 


Suffering  the  penalty  is  not  all 
the  lav/  requires. 

45.  So  says  the  Christian  .Li- 
brary. 

But  this  does  not  prove  that  I  contradict  myself 

V. 


law  requires,  (p.  132.) 
So  says  John  Goodwin. 


St.  Paul  speaks  of  the  law  as 
a  persouf 

46.  The  law  is  here  spoken  of 
AS  a  person,  to  which  as  to  a  hus- 
band, life  and  death  are  ascribed. 

There  is  no  contradiction  here, 
the  law 
cribed." 


tohc  satisfied." 


St.  Paul  does  not  speak  of  the 
law  as  a  person,  (p.  138.) 

This  way  of  speaking  of  the 
law  as  a  person  injured  and  to  be 
satisfied,  seems  hardly  defensible. 

I  do  affirm,  St.  Paul  speaks  of 
'as  a  person  to  which  as  a  husband,  life  and  death  are  as- 
But  I  deny,  that  he  speaks  of  it  "  as  a  person  injured  and 


VI. 


For  a  two-fold  justification. 

47.  Mr.  F.  aflirms  justification 

IS  two-fold. 


Most  true, 
iiistification. 


Against  a  two-fold  justifi- 
cation. 
The  justification  spoken  of  by 
St.  Paul  to  the   Romans,   and  in 
our  articles,  is  one  and  no  more, 
(p.  133.) 

And  yet  our  Lord  (Matt.  xii.  37.)  speaks  of  another 
Now  I  think  one  and  one  make  two. 

ViF. 


For  a  justified  state. 


48.  The  state  of  a  justified  per- 
son is    inexpressibly  great 
glorious. 


Against  a  justified  state, 
(p.  139.) 
Does  not  talking  ot  a  justified 
and   or  sanctified  state,    tend  to  mis- 
lead  men  1    It   frequently   does. 
But  where  is  the  contradiction  1 
VIII. 

They  who   are  once  justified 
are  justified  for  ever. 

49.     Christian  Library.     No- 
thing. 

IX. 

Works  are  not  a  condition  o< 


They  who   arc  justified,  may 
become  total  apostates. 


Works  are  a  condition  of  jus-       Works  arc 
tification,  (p.  134.)  'justification. 


488 


SOME   REMARKS   O::^    MR.    HILL's   REVIEW 


50.  Salvation  (i.  e.  glory)  is  not 
by  the  merit  of  works,  but  by 
works  as  a  condition. 

This  proposition  does  not  speak 
of  justification.  So  it  is  nothing 
to  the  purpose. 

Whoever  desires  to  find  favour 
with  God,  should  cease  Jrom  evil 
and  learn  to  do  well.  Whoever 
repents  should  do  works  meet  for 
repentance.  And  if  this  is  not  in 
order  to  find  favour,  what  does 
he  do  them  for. 

All  this  I  believe  still. 


I  believe  no  good  works  can 
be  previous  to  justification  ;  nor 
consequently  a  condition  of  it. 

51.  If  a  man  could  be  holy, 
before  he  was  justified,  it  would 
set  his  justification  aside. 

52.  Thou  canst  do  nothing  but 
sin,  till  thou  art  justified. 

53.  We  allow,  that  God  justifies 
the  ungodly,  him  that  to  that  hour 
is  full  of  all  evil,  void  of  all  good  ; 
and  him  that  worketh  not,  till  that 
moment  worketh  no  goodness.    . 

But   Mr.  W.  says,   whoever  desires  to 


lind  favour  with  God  should  cease  from  evil  and  learn  to  do  well,''''  &c. 
Does  not  the  Bible  say  so  ]  Who  can  deny  it  1  Nay  but  Mr.  W. 
asks,  "  If  this  be  not  in  order  to  find  favour,  what  does  he  do  them 
for  ?''  And  I  ask  it  again.  Let  Mr.  H.  or  any  one  else,  give  me  an 
answer.  So  if  there  is  any  contradiction  here,  it  is  not  I  contradict 
myself,  but  Isaiah  and  our  Lord  that  contradict  St.  Paul. 

X. 


For  justification  by  the  act  oJ 
believing. 

The  faith  which  is  said  to  be 
imputed  to  Abraham  for  right- 
.eousness,  is  faith  properly  taken  ; 
and  not  the  righteousness  oi 
Christ  apprehended  by  faith. 


Against  justification  by  the  act 
of  believing. 

54.  But  do  not  you  put  faith  in 
the  room  of  Christ,  and  his  right- 
eousness ?  No  :  I  take  particular 
care  to  put  each  of  these  in  its  pro- 
per place. 

This  is  putting  each  of  these  in  its  proper  place.  The  righteousness 
of  Christ  is  the  meritorious  cause  of  our  justification.  That  is  its 
jn-oper  place.  Faith  in  him  that  gave  himself  for  us,  is  the  condi- 
tion of  justification.     That  is  its  proper  place. 

I  am  justified  through  the  righteousness  of  Christ  as  the  price; 
through  faith  as  the  condition.  I  do  not  say,  neither  does  Goodwin, 
faith  is  that, /or  which  we  were  accepted.  But  we  both  say,  faith  is 
that  through  which  we  are  acce])ted.  We  are  justified,  we  are  ac- 
cepted of  God, /or  the  sake  of  Christ,  through  faith.  Now  certainly 
there  is  no  contradiction  in  this  ;  unless  a  contradiction  to  Mr.  H.'s' 
notions. 


55.  Although  we  have  faith, 
hope,  and  love,  yet  we  must  re- 
nounce the  merit  of  all,  as  far  too 
weak  to  deserve  our  justification  ; 
for  which  we  must  trust  only  to 
the  merits  of  Christ. 


That  which  is  the  condition  ot 
justification,  is  not  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ. 

Most  true  :  otherwise  we  con- 
found the  condition  with  the  meri- 
torious cause  spoken  of  in  the  op- 
posite column. 


OP   ALL    MR.    WESLEY  S    DOCTRINES. 


48i> 


XI. 


Justification  by  faith  alone  is 
.lirticuliis  stanlis  vel  cadentis  eccle- 
me.  All  who  do  not  hold  it  must 
perish  everlastingly. 

56.  Of  tliis  may  be  affirmed, 
(what  Luther  affirms,  of  justifica- 
tion by  faith,)  that  it  is  Jirtkulus 
stantis  vel  cadentis  ecclesm,  the 
pillar  of  that  faith  of  which  alone 
Cometh  salvation;  that  faith  which 
unless  a  man  keep  whole  and  un- 
defiled,  without  doubt  he  shall 
perish  everlastingly. 


Justification  by  faith  alone  is 
not  Jlrticulus  stantis  vel  cadentis 
ecclesice. .  Some  may  doubt  of  it, 
yea,  deny  it,  and  yet  not  perish 
everlastingly,  (p.  127  ) 

A  pious  churchman  who  has 
not  clear  conceptions  of  justifica,- 
ti  m  by  faith,  may  be  saved  ;  yea, 
a  mystic,  (Mr.  Law,  for  instance,) 
who  denies  justification  by  faith. 
If  so,  the  doctrine  of  justification 
by  faith  is  not  ^flrticulus  stantis  vel 
cadentis  ecclesiae. 


It  is  certain  here  is  a  seeming  contradiction  :  but  it  is  .not  a  real 
one.  For  these  two  opposite  propositions  do  not  speak  of  the  same 
thing.  The  latter  speaks  of  justification  by  faith  :  the  former,  of 
trusting  in  the  righteousness  or  merits  of  Christ :  (justification  by  faith 
is  only  mentioned  incidentally  in  a  parenthesis.)  Now  although  Mr, 
Law  denied  justification  by  faith,  he  might  trust  in  the  merits  of  Christ. 
It  is  this,  and  this  only  that  I  affirm,  (whatever  Luther  does,)  to  be 
Articulus  stantis  vel  cadentis  ecclesiw. 


XII 

the 


JNIr.  W.  is  a   Calvinist   in 
point  of  justification. 

57.  I  think  on  justification  just 
as  I  have  done  these  seven  and 
twenty  years,  and  just  as  Calvin 
does. 


Mr.  W.  has  leaned  too  much 
toward  Calvinism  in  this  point. 

We  have  leaned  too  much  to- 
ward Calvinism,  (p.  141.) 

But  not  in  this  point :  not  as  to 
justification  by  faith. 


We  still  agree  with  him,  that  the  merits  of  Christ  are  the  cause, 
faith  the  condition  of  justification. 


XIII. 


58.  I  have  occasionally  used 
those  expressions,  imputed  right- 
eousness, the  righteousness  of 
Christ,  and  the  like.  But  I  never 
used  them  in  any  other  sense  than 
that  wherein  Calvin  does. 

59.  Mr.  W.  does  approve  the 
expression  ichy  me  ? 

My  brother  uses  it  in  a  hymn. 

This  proof  halts  on  both  feet 


Goodwin. 


Nothing. 


Mr.  W.  does  not  approve  thf 
expression  why  me  ? 

Mr.  F.  says,  Mr.  W.  doubts 
concerning  it.  (p.  140.) 

But  why  did  not  Mr.  W.  strike 


out  of  Mr.  F.'s  manuscript,  the  honourable  expressions  concerning 
himself?"  Because  he  thought  them  a  proper  counter-balance  to 
the  contumehous  expressions  of  Mr.  H, 


490 


SOME   REMARKS   ON   MR.    HILl's   REVIEW 


XIV. 

Our  sin  is  imputed  to  Christ, 


and  Christ's  righteousness  to  us. 

60.  )  Christian  Library. 

61.  3  JSTothing. 

XV. 
and 


Our  sin  is   not    imputed  to 


Christ,  nor  Christ's  righteousness 
to  us.  (p.  140.) 


Neither  Adam's  sin,  nor  Christ't 
righteousness  is  imputed. 


62.  Both    Adam's     sin 
Christ's   righteousness    are    im- 
puted, (p.  131.) 

63.  Nothing  against  nothing. 

In  what  sense  I  believe  the  Christian  Library  to  be  all  true,  I  have 
declared  above. 

XVI. 
Mr.  W.  holds  free-will. 


64.   Mr.  F.  holds  free-will. 


Mr.  W.  wonders  how  any  man 
can  hold  free  will. 
Mr.  W.  denies  it. 

This  may  prove  that  Mr  W.  contradicts  Mr.  F.  but  it  can  nevei 
prove  that  he  contradicts  himself  But  indeed  both  Mr.  F.  and  Mr. 
W.  absolutely  deny  nafwra/  free-will.  We  both  steadily  assert,  that 
the  will  of  man  is  by  nature  free  only  to  evil.  Yet  we  both  believe, 
that  every  man  has  a  measure  of  free-will  restored  to  him  by  grace. 


XVII. 


For  the  doctrine  of  Merit. 

65.  "  We  are  rewarded  ac- 
cording to  our  works,  yea,  be- 
cause of  our  works.  How  does 
this  differ  from,  for  the  sake  of 
our  works  1  And  how  differs  this 
from  Secundum  merita  operum,  or 
as  our  works  deserve  ?  Can  you 
split  this  hair  1  I  doubt  I  cannot." 
— I  say  so  still.  Let  Mr.  H.  if  he 
can. 

And  all  this  is  no  more  than  to  say.  Take  the  word  merit  in  a  strict 
sense,  and  I  utterly  renounce  it.  Take  it  in  a  looser  sense,  and 
though  1  never  use  it,  yet  I  do  not  condemn  it.  Therefore  with  re- 
gard to  the  word  merit,  I  do  not  contradict  myself  at  all. 


Against  the  doctrine  of  Merit. 
And  yet  I  still  maintain. 
"  There  is  no  merit,  taking  the 
word  strictly,  but  in  the  blood  of 
Christ :  that  sah  alion  is  not  by 
the  merit  of  \yorks.  And  that 
there  is  nothing  we  are,  or  have, 
or  do,  which  can,  strictly  speak- 
ing, deserve  the  least  thing  at 
God's  hand." 


XVIII. 


For  a  single  life. 

66.  Mr.  W.  says,  his  thoughts 
on  a  single  life  are  just  the  same 
they  have  been  these  thirty  years, 
(p.  136.) 

67.  He  advises,  that  we  should 
pray  against  marriage. 


Against  a  single  life. 


Why  then  did  Mr.  W.  marry? 
— For  reasons  best  known  to  him- 
self. 

I  advise  single  persons  to  pray, 
"  That  they  may  prize  the  advan- 
tages they  enjoy." 


Be  this  right  or  wrong,  still  here  is  no  contradiction. 


OF  ALL'  MR.  Wesley's  doctrines. 


491 


XIX. 

For  gay  apparel.  ,  Against  gay  apparel. 

68.  To  make  it  a  point  of  con-  \  Let  a  single  intention  to  please 
science,  to  ditier  from  others,  (as  God  prescribe  both  what  clothing 
the  Qual^ers  do,)  in  the  shape  or  you  should  buy,  and  the  manner 
colour  of  their  apparel,  is  mere  ,  Avherein  it  shall  be  made.  ibid. — 
superstition.  This  I  stand  to. 

Wear  nothing  of  a  glaring  co- 
lour, or  made  in  the  very  height  of 
the  fashion. 


So  I  advise :  but  I  do  not  make  it  a  point  of  conscience. 
no  contradiction  still. 

XX. 


So  he 


re  i> 


Against  tea. 
69.  Mr.  W.  published  a  tract 
against  drinking  tea,  and  told  the 
tea-drinkers,  he  would  set  them  an 
example  in  that  piece  of  self-de- 
nial. 


For  tea. 
I  did  set  them  an  example  fov 
twelve  years.     Then  at  the  close 
of  a  consumption,  by  Dr.  Fother- 
gill's  direction,  I  used  it  again. 


But  must  not  a  man  be  sadly  in  want  of  argument,  who  stoops  so 
low  as  this  ? 


XXI. 


For  baptism  by  sprinkling. 

70.  As  there  is  no  clear  proof 
of  dipping  in  Scripture,  so  there 
is  very  probable  proof  to  the  con- 
trary. 


71.  Christ  nowhere,  as  far  as  I 
can  find,  requires  dipping,  but 
only  baptizing ;  "which  word  sig- 
nifies to  pour  on,  or  sprinkle,  as 
well  as  to  dip. 


Against  baptism  by  sprinkling. 

When  Mr.  W.  baptized  Mrs.  L, 
S.  he  held  her  so  long  under  wa- 
ter, that  her  friends  screamed  out." 
thinking  she  had  been  drowned. 

When  ?  Where  ?  I  never  heard 
of  it  before. 

Why  then  did  you  at  Savannah 
baptize  all  children  by  immersion, 
unless  the  parents  certified  they  icere 
weak  ? 

Not  because  I  had  any  scruple, 
but  in  obedience  to  the  rubric. 
So  here  is  no  self-inconsistency. 


XXII. 

Mr.  Wesley  never  adopted  Mr.  |  Mr.  W.  highly  approved  of  Mr. 
Law's  scheme.  |  Law. 

These  propositions  are  not  contradictory.  I  might  highly  approve 
of  him,  and  yet  not  adopt  his  scheme.  How  will  Mr.  H.  prove  that  I 
did  ?     Or  that  I  contradict  myself  on  this  head  ?     Why  thus  : 

73.  I  had  been  eight  years  at  I  To  instruct  a  person  in  the  na- 
Oxford,  before  I  read  any  of  Mr.  ture  of  Christianity,  I  fixed  an 
Law's  writings.  And  when  I  did,  hour  a  day,  to  read  with  her  in 
I  was  so  far  from  making  them  I  Mr.  Law's  treatise  on   Christian 


'192 


SOME   EEMAKKS    ON   MR.  HILl's    EEVICAV 


my  creed,  that  I  had  objections, 
to  almost  evry  page,  p.  135. 


Perfection.  1  did  so.  And  at/ 
excellent  book  it  is,  though  liable 
to  many  objections. 

73.  Another  little  company  ot 
us  met:  we  sung,  read  a  little  pt 
Mr.  Law,  and  then  conversed. 
True ;  but  neither  does  this  prove  that  I  adopted  his  scheme. 


73.  I  believe  the  mystic  writers, 
to  be  one  great  Antichrist. 

74.  Mr.  F.  affirms,  Solomon  is 
the  chief  of  mystics :  and  Mr.  W. 
acquiesces  in  the  affirmation. 


I  retract  this.  It  is  far  too 
strong.  But  observe !  I  never 
contradicted  it  till  now. 

I  do  not.  I  affirm  no  such  thing. 
Therefore  all  Mr.  H-.  builds  upon 
this,  is  only  a  castle  in  the  air. 


XXIII. 


'Enoch  and  Elijah  are  in  hea- 


ven. 


Enoch  and  Elijah  are  not  in 
heaven. 
Enoch  and  Elijah  are  not  in 
heaven,  but  only  in  paradise,   (p. 
138.) 


75.  Enoch  and  Elijah  entered 
at  once  into  the  highest  degree  of 
glory. 

Notes  on  the  New  Testament,  John  iii.  13.  first  edition. 

But  why  is  Mr.  H.  so  careful  to  name  the  first  edition  ?  Because 
in  the  second  the  mistake  is  corrected.  Did  he  know  this  ?  And 
could  he  avail  himself  of  a  mistake,  which  he  knew  was  removed 
before  he  wrote ! 

XXIV. 

For  sinless  perfection.  |        Against  sinless  perfection. 

Upon  this  head  Mr.  H.  employs  his  whole  strength.  I  will,  there- 
fore, the  more  carefully  weigh  what  he  advances :  only  premising, 
before  I  descend  to  particulars,  two  general  observations. 

1.  Out  of  the  twenty -five  passages  cited  for  perfection,  seventeen 
are  taken  from  my  brother's  hymns.     These,  therefore,  strike  wide.  " 
Whatever  they  prove,  they  cannot  prove,  that  /  contradict  myself. 

2.  Out  of  the  twenty-five  cited  against  perfection,  fourteen  are  cited 
from  the  sermon  on  sin  in  believers.  Do  I  mean,  in  such  believers  as 
are  perfected  in  love  ?  Mr.  H.  himself  knows  I  do  not.  Why  then 
every  one  of  these  fourteen  arguments,  is  an  abuse  both  upon  me  and 
his  readers.  It  is  the  most  egregious  trifling  that  can  be  conceived. 
I  affirm,  "  Those  perfected  in  love,  are  saved  from  inward  sin."  To 
prove  I  contradict  myself  herein,  fourteen  passages  are  alleged, 
wherein  I  affirm,  "  We  are  not  saved  from  inward  sin,  till  we  are 
perfected  in  love !" 

3.  The  same  fallacy  is  used  in  every  instance,  when  some  of  mj 
words  are  set  in  opposition  to  others.  The  sum  is,  weak  believers. 
babes  in  Christ,  are  not ;  adult  believers,  are  saved  from  inward  sin. 
And  I  still  aver,  there  is  no  contradiction  in  this,  if  !  know  what  \^ 
contradiction  means. 


OF   ALL   MR.  WESLEV  S   DOCTllIKES. 


•10  ■ 


They  are  sensible  of  pride  re 
mainins  in  their  hearts. 


"Now  to  the  proofs. 

76.  The  Son  hath  made  them, 
who  are  thus  horn  of  God,  free 
iTom  pride. 

They?     Who?     Not  those  who  are  thus  horn  of  God,  who  arc 
perfected  in  love. 


77.  From  the  iniquity  of  pride 
and  self,  I  shall  be  free. 

That  is,  when  I  am  perfe<Aed  in 
love. 

78.  They  are  freed  from  wan- 
derings in  prayer. 

79.  Christians  are  saved  from 
all  sin,  from  all  unrighteousness. 

80.  They  (adult  Christians)  are 
freed  from  all  evil  thoughts  and  evil 
Lempers. 

81 .  They  (fathers  in  Christ)  are 
freed  from  evil  thoughts. 

83.  Christ  was  free  from  sinful 
thoughts.  So  are  they  likewise 
[adult  believers.) 

83.  I  believe,  some  would  say, 
"We  trust  we  do  keep  the  whole 
law  of  love." 


God's  children  are  daily  sensible 
of  pride  and  sclf-wiU.  That  is, 
till  they  are  perfected  in  love. 

Is  this  spoken  of  all  believers? 
Mr.  H.  knows  it  is  not. 
True,  adidt  Christians. 

The  (infant)  children  of  God 
have  in  them  sin  of  every  kind. 

The  evil  nature  opposes  the 
Spirit  even  in  believers — till  they 
are  fathers  in  Christ. 

This  doctrine  (that  all  believers 
are  thus  free)  is  wholly  new^ 

Believers  are  conscious  of  noi 
fulfilling  the  whole  law  of  love  : 
not  till  they  are  perfected  in  love. 

The  reader  will  please  to  remember  all  along-,  the  question  is  not. 
Whether  the  doctrine  be  right  or  wrong :  (that  has  been  elsewhere 
considered)  but  whether  I  contradict  myself.  Upwards  of  fourscore 
witnesses  have  been  already  examined  on  this  head :  but  no  contra- 
diction is  proved  yet. 


84.  Some  do  love  God  nitli  all 
their  heart  and  strength. 

85.  From  that  hour,  in-dwell- 
ing sin,  thou  hast  no  place  in  me. 

86.  A  sinless  life  we  live. 
87. 

iisc,  I  am  not  born  again. 


"W'hile  one  evil  thought  can 


They  (weak  believers)  do  noi 
love  God  with  all  their  heart  and 
strength. 

Believers  are  not  delivered  from 
the  being  of  sin  till  that  hour. 

Christian  Library,  nothing. 

My  brother  said  so  once  :  I  ne- 
ver did. 


In  the  note  annexed,  there  are  many  mistakes.  1.  "  The  authov 
of  this  hymn  did  not  allow  any  one  to  be  a  believer,  even  in  the  lowest 
.<ense,  while  he  found  the  least  stirring  of  sin."  He  did :  but  he  took 
ihe  word  born  again  in  too  high  a  sense.  2.  Yet  "  he  supposes 
the  most  advanced  believers  are  deeply  sensible  of  their  impurity." 
He  does  not :  neither  he  nor  I  suppose  any  such  thing.  3.  "He 
tells  us  in  his  note  on  Eph.  vi.  13,  The  icar  is  perpetual.''  True: 
•the  war  with  principalities  and  powers ;  but  not  that  with  flesh  ar0l^lood. 
i.  So  you  cannot  reply,   "  Mr.  W.  speaks  of  believers  of  afferent 

Vol.  9.— T  t 


494 


SOME   KEMARKS  ON   MR.  HILL's   REVIEW 


Stature.''  Indeed  I  can  :  and  the  forgetting  this  is  the  main  cause  oi 
Mr.  H.'s  stumbling  at  every  step.  5.  "  The  position,  that  (any)  be- 
lievers are  totally  free  from  sin,  is  diametrically  opposite  to  Calvin- 
ism." This  is  no  mistake.  Therefore  most  Calvinists  hate  it  with  a 
perfect  hatred.  6.  "  Many  of  the  grossest  of  these  contradictions, 
were  published  nearly  at  the  same  time :  and  probably  Mr.  W.  was  the 
same  day  correcting  the  press,  both  for  and  against  Sinless  Perfection." 
An  ingenious  thought !  But  as  to  the  truth,  or  even  probability  of  it, 
I  cannot  say  much.  7.  These  hymns  contain  the  joint  sentiments  of 
Mr.  John  and  Mr.  Charles  Wesley."  Not  always :  so  that  if  some 
of  them  contradict  others,  it  does  not  prove,  that  I  contradict  myself. 


88. 
heart. 


Christ  in  a  pure  and  sinless 


89.  Quite  expel  the  carnal  mind. 


90.  From  every  evil  motionfreed. 


There  are  still  two  contrary 
principles  in  believers,  nature  and 
grace.  True,  till  they  are  perfect 
in  love. 

That  there  is  no  sin  in  a  (weak) 
believer,  no  carnal  mind,  is  con- 
trary to  the  word  of  God. 

How  naturally  do  men  think, 
sin  has  no  motion ;  therefore  it  has 
no  being. 


But  how  does  this  prove,  that  I  contradict  myself? 


9 1 .  All  the  struggle  then  is  o'er. 

92.  I  wrestle  not  now. 


93.  God  is  thine; 
the  enemy  within. 


disdain  to  fear 


These  are  two  of  my  brother's 
expressions,  which  I  do  not  sub- 
scribe to. 

Let  us  watch  and  pray  against 
the  enemy  within. 


Are  these  lines  cited  as  implying,  the  enemy  was  not  within  ?  Most 
unhappily.  They  mean,  the  enemy  which  is  within.  For  the  very 
next  words,  which  Mr.  II.  himself  cited  but  a  page  before,  are. 


God  ihall  in  thy  flesh  appear, 
And  make  an  end  of  sin. 


94.  We  wrestle  not  icith  flesh  and 
blood,  when  we  are  grown  up  in 
Christ. 

No  contradiction  yet. 

95.  Sin  shall  not  in  our  flesh 
remain. 

96.  I  cannot  rest  if  sin  in  me 
remains. 

97.) 

98.  V  My  brother's. 

99.) 

JOO.  "  Do  not  the  best  of  men 
say.  We  groan,  being  burdened  with 
the  workings  of  inbred  corrup- 
tion ?"  This  is  not  the  meaning 
of  thaiitxt;   the  whole  context 


We  wrestle  both  with  flesh  and 
blood,  and  with  principalities;  while 
we  are  babes  in  Christ. 

Still  he  (the  babe  hi  Christ)  feels 
the  remains  of  the  old  man. 

Sin  remains  in  them  still.  In 
all  weak  believers. 


We  groan,  being  burdened  with 
numberless  infirmities,  tempta- 
tions, and  sins. — This  is  wrong. 
It  is  not  the  meaning  of  the  text. 
I  will  put  it  out,  if  I  live  to  print 


OP   ALL   MR.  WESLEY  S   DOCTRINES. 


491 


shows,  the  cause  of  that  groaning 
was,  their  longing  to  be  with 
Christ. 

101.  Nor  does  he  that  is  born 
of  God  sin  by  infirmities :  for  his 
infirmities  have  no  concurrence  of 
his  will.  And  without  this,  they 
are  not  properly  sins. — That  is, 
they  are  not  voluntary  transgress- 
ions of  a  known  law. 


another  edition.     So  just  one  shot 
in  a  hundred  has  hit  the  mark. 

Many  infirmities  remain,  where- 
by we  are  daily  subject  to  what 
are  called  sins  of  infirmity.  And 
they  are  in  some  sense  sins ;  as 
being  (involuntary)  transgressions 
of  the  perfect  law. 


I  see  no  contradiction  here  :  but  if  there  was,  it  ought  not  to  have 
been  mentioned.  It  could  not  by  any  generous  writer ;  since  Mr. 
Hill  himself  testifies,  it  was  expunged  before  he  mentioned  it !  But 
suppose  it  stood  as  at  first,  I  flatly  deny,  that  it  is  any  contradiction  at 
all.  These  infirmities  may  be  in  some  sense  sins  ;  and  yet  not  properly 
so  :  that  is,  sins  in  an  improper,  but  not  the  proper,  sense  of  the  word. 
13.  But  "  Mr.  W.  has  not  yet  determined,  whether  sins  of  surprise 
bring  the  soul  under  condemnation  or  not.  (p.  111.)  However,  it 
were  to  be  wished,  that  sins  of  surprise  and  sins  of  infirmity  too  were 
to  be  declared  mortal  at  the  next  conference  ;  since  several  persons 
who  pretend  to  reverence  Mr.  W.  not  only  fall  into  outrageous  pas- 
sions, but  cozen  and  over-reach  their  neighbours :  and  call  these  things 
little,  innocent  infirmities.  Reader,  weigh  well  those  words  of  Mr. 
W.  '  We  cannot  say,  either  that  men  are  or  are  not  condemned  foi 
sins  of  surprise.'  And  yet  immediately  before  he  calls  them,  trans- 
gressions, as  here  he  calls  them  sins.  Strange  divinity  this,  for  one 
who  for  near  forty  years  past  has  professed  to  believe  and  teach  that 
'sin  is  the  transgression  of  the  law,  and'  that  'the  wages  of  sin  is 
death.'  "  He  then  brings  three  instances  of  sins  of  surprise,  (over 
and  above  cozening  and  over-reaching,)  drunkenness,  fornication,  and 
flying  into  a  passion  and  knocking  a  man  down :  and  concludes,  "  Mr. 
W.  had  better  sleep  quietly,  than  rise  from  his  own  pillow  in  order  to 
lull  his  hearers  asleep,  upon  the  pillow  of  false  security,  by  speaking 
in  so  light  a  manner  of  sin,  and  making  the  breach  of  God's  holy  law 
a  mere  nothing." 

14.  This  is  a  charge  indeed  !  And  it  is  perfectly  new  :  I  believe 
it  was  never  advanced  before.  It  will  not  therefore  be  improper  to 
give  it  a  thorough  examination.  It  is  founded  on  some  passages  in 
the  sermon  on  Rom.  viii.  I.  "There  is  therefore  no  condemnation 
to  them  that  are  in  Christ  Jesus,  who  walk  not  after  the  flesh,  but  after 
the  Spirit."  In  order  to  give  a  clear  view  of  the  doctrine  therein  de- 
livered, I  must  extract  the  sum  of  the  sermon. 

I  show,  1.  Who  are  "those  that  are  in  Christ  Jesus:"  "Those 
who  are  joined  to  the  Lord  in  one  spirit,  who  dwell  in  Christ  and 
Christ  in  them.  And  '  whosoever  abideth  in  him  sinweth  not,  walk- 
eth  not  after  the  flesh,'  that  is,  corrupt  nature.  These  abstain  from 
every  design,  and  word,  and  work,  to  which  the  corruption  of  nature 
leads,  (p.  145.)  They  'walk  after  the  Spirit'  both  in  their  hearts 
and  lives.     By  him  they  are  led  into  every  holy  desire,  into  every  di- 


49S  SOME   nE3IARKS   OX   MR.  IIItL's  EEVIE^V 

vine  and  lieavenly  temper,  till  every  tliought  of  their  heart  is  '  holi- 
ness to  the  Lord.' 

"  They  are  also  led  by  him  into  all  holiness  of  conversation.  They 
exercise  themselves  day  and  night,  to  do  only  the  things  which  please 
God  :  in  all  their  outward  behaviour,  to  follow  him  '  who  left  us  an 
example  that  we  might  tread  in  his  steps :'  in  all  their  intercourse 
with  their  neighbour,  to  walk  in  justice,  mercy,  and  truth :  and  what- 
soever they  do  in  every  circumstance  of  life,  to  '  do  all  to  the  glory 
of  God."''(p.246.) 

Is  here  any  room  for  "  cozening  and  over-reaching  ?"  For  "  fly- 
ing into  outrageous  passions  ?"  Does  this  give  any  countenance,  for 
"  knocking  men  down?"     For  "  drunkenness,  or  fornication  ?" 

But  let  us  go  on  to  the  second  head.  "  To  whom  is  there  no  con- 
demnation? To  believers  in  Christ  who  i/ms  walk  after  the  Spirit, 
there  is  no  condemnation  for  their  past  sins.  (p.  127.)  Neither  for 
present,  for  now  transgressing  the  conuuandments  of  God  ;  for  they 
do  not  transgress  them.  This  is  the  proof  of  their  love  of  God,  that 
they  keep  his  commandments,  (p.  148.)  They  are  not  condemned,  3. 
for  inward  sin,  so  long  as  they  do  not  yield  thereto ;  so  long-as  they 
maintain  a  continual  war  with  all  sin,  with  pride,  anger,  desire,  so  that 
Ihe  flesh  hath  no  dominion  over  them,  but  they  still  walk  after  the  Spi- 
lil."  (p.  160.)  Is  any  encouragement  given  here  to  cozeners  oi 
whoremongers  ? 

It  follows,  "  They  are  not  condemned  for  sins  of  infirmity,  as  they 
are  usually  called.  Perhaps  it  were  advisable  rather  to  call  them  in- 
firmities, that  we  may  not  seem  to  give  any  countenance  to  sin,  or  to 
extenuate  it  in  any  degree,  by  thus  coupling  it  with  infirmity.  But 
(if  we  must  use  such  an  ambiguous  and  dangerous  expression)  hj  sins 
of  infirmity  I  would  mean,  such  involuntary  failings,  as  the  saying  a 
thing  we  believe  true,  though  in  fact  it  prove  to  be  false ;  or  the  hurt- 
ing our  neighbour,  without  knowing  or  designing  it ;  perhaps  when 
we  designed  to  do  him  good."  (p.  151.) 

What  pretence  has  Mr.  H.  from  these  words  to  flourish  away  upon 
my  ''strange  divinity  f''  And  to  represent  me  giving  men  a  handle, 
to  term  gross  sins  innocent  infirmities  ? 

But  now  comes  <he  main  point.  "  It  is  more  difficult  to  determine 
concerning  those  which  are  usually  styled  sins  of  surprise,  (p.  152.) 
..\s  when  one  who  commonly  in  his  patience  possesses  his  soul,  on  a 
sudden  or  violent  temptation,  speaks  or  acts  in  a  manner  not  consist- 
ent with  the  royal  law  of  love."  (For  instance.  You  have  the  gout. 
A.  careless  man  treads  on  your  foot.  You  violently  push  him  away, 
and  it  may  be  cry  out,  "Get  away :  get  you  out  of  my  sight.") 
"  Perhaps  it  is  not  easy,  to  fix  a  general  rule  concerning  transgress- 
ions of  this  nature.  We  cannot  say  either  that  men  are,  or  that  thej 
are  not  condemned, /or  sins  of  surprise  in  general."  (p.  153.) 

"  Reader,"  says  ^Ir.  H.  "let  me  beg  of  thee  to  weigh  well  the 
foregoing  words."     I  say  so  too.     I  go  on.     "  But  it  seems,  when- 
ever a  believer  is  overtaken  in  a  fault,  there  is  more  or  less  condemna 
tion,  as  there  is  more  or  less  concurrence  of  his  will. — Therefore 
some  sins  of  surprise  bring  much  guilt  and  condemnation.     For  ii 


OF  ALL  MR.  WESLEv's  DOCTRIiNES.  497 

some  instances  our  being  surprised  may  be  owing  to  some  culpable 
neglect,  or  to  a  sleepiness  of  soul,  which  might  have  been  prevented 
or  shaken  off,  before  the  temptation  came.  The  falling  even  by  sur- 
prise in  such  an  instance  exposes  the  sinner  to  condemnation,  both 
from  God  and  his  own  conscience. 

"  On  the  other  hand,  there  may  be  sudden  assaults,  which  he 
hardly  could  foresee,  by  which  he  may  be  borne  down,  suppose  into 
a  degree  of  anger,  or  thinking  evil  of  another,  with  scarcely  any  con- 
currence of  the  will.  Now  in  such  a  case  the  jealous  God  would 
undoubtedly  show  him,  that  he  had  done  foolishly.  He  would  be 
convinced  of  having  swerved  from  the  perfect  law,  and  consequently 
grieved  with  a  godly  sorrow,  and  lovingly  ashamed  before  God.  Yet 
need  he  not  come  into  condemnation.  In  the  midst  of  that  sorrow 
and  shame,  he  can  still  say,  "The  Lord  is  my  strength  and  my  song  : 
he  is  also  become  my  salvation."  (p.  154.) 

Now  what  can  any  impartial  person  think  of  Mr.  H.'s  eloquence 
on  this  head  1  What  a  representation  he  has  given  of  my  doctrine, 
with  regard  to  infirmities  and  sins  of  surprise  ?  Was  ever  any  thing 
more  unjust  ]  Was  ever  any  thing  more  cruel  1  Do  I  here  "  lull 
my  readers  asleep  on  the  pillow  of  false  security '?"  Do  I  "  speak  in 
a  light  manner  of  sinl"  Or  "make  the  breach  of  God's  holy  law  a 
mere  nothing .?"  What  excuse  can  be  made  for  pouring  out  all  this 
flood  of  calumny  i  Can  any  thing  be  termed  "  bearing  false  wit- 
ness against  our  neighbour,"  if  this  is  not  1  Am  I  indeed  a  loose 
casuist  ]  Do  any  of  my  writings  give  countenance  to  sin  1  Not  so  : 
God  knows,  Mr.  Hill  knows,  Mr.  Romaine  (who  corrected  this 
tract)  knows  it  well.  So  does  Mr.  Madan  :  yea,  so  do  .all  who  read 
what  I  write,  unless  they  wilfully  shut  their  eyes. 

15.  "  Thus  have  I  at  length,"  says  Mr.  H.  "  brought  this  extra- 
ordinary farrago  to  a  conclusion.  Not  because  I  could  not  have 
found  many  more  inconsistencies."  (p.  142.)  Yes,  another  hundred, 
such  as  these.  But  see  a  group  of  them  at  once  !  "  His  extract 
from  bishop  Beveridge,  is  flatly  contradicted  in  his  edition  of  John 
Goodwin.  Again,  Goodwin  is  flatly  contradicted,  by  his  sermon  on 
'  The  Lord  our  Righteousness.'  This  sermon  is  contradicted  in  his 
*  Preservative  against  unsettled  Notions  in  Religion.'  This  Pre- 
servative is  itself  contradicted,  by  his  Abstract  from  Dr.  Preston. 
This  Abstract  is  itself  contradicted  by  his  edition  of  Baxter's  Apho- 
risms. And  these  are  flatly  contradicted,  by  his  extract  from  bishop 
Beveridge.  And  this  is  again  flatly  contradicted  by  his  own 
'  Thoughts  on  imputed  Righteousness,'  Thus  the  wheel  runs 
round!"  Thus  Mr.  H.'s  head  runs  round,  with  more  haste  than 
good  speed.  (If  this  curious  paragraph  be  not  rather,  as  I  suspect, 
supplied  by  another  hand  ;  even  as  Sternhold's  Psalms  are  now  and 
then  eked  out  by  N,  N.  or  William  Wisdom.)  He  forgets,  that 
generals  prove  nothing  ;  and  that  he  has  sadly  failed  in  his  particu- 
lar charges :  just  a  hundred  out  of  a  hundred  and  one,  having 
])roved  void.  So  that  now  I  have  full  right  to  say,  "  Whence  arises 
this  charge  of  self-inconsistency  and  contradiction  1     Merelv  irom 

Tt2 


198  SOME  KEJIAEKS  ON  MR.  HILL's  REVIEW 

straining,  winding  to  and  fro,  and  distorting  a  few  innocent  word>. 
For  wherein  have  I  contradicted  myself,  taking  words  in  their  un- 
forced, natural  construction,  in  any  one  respect,  with  regard  to  jus- 
tification, since  the  year  1738]-' 

17.  But  Mr.  H.'s  head  is  so  full  of  my  self-inconsistency,  that  he 
still  blunders  on.  "  Mr.  W.'s  wavering  disposition  is  not  an  affair 
of  yesterday.  Mr.  Delamotte  spake  to  him  on  this  head,  more  than 
thirty  years  ago."  (p.  143.)  He  never  spake  to  me  on  this  head  at 
all.  Ask  him.  He  is  still  alive.  "  He  has  been  tossed  from  one 
system  to  another,  from  the  time  of  his  ordination  to  the  present  mo- 
ment." Nothing  can  be  more  false  ;  as  not  only  my  Journals,  but 
all  my  writings  testify.  "  And  he  himself  cannot  but  acknowledge, 
that  both  his  friends  and  foes  have  accused  him  of  his  unsettled  prin- 
ciples in  religion."  Here  is  artifice !  Would  any  man  living,  who 
does  not  know  the  fact,  suppose  that  a  gentleman  would  face  a  man 
down  in  so  peremptory  a  manner,  imless  the  thing  were  absolutely 
true  ?  And  yet  it  is  quite  the  reverse.  "  He  himself  cannot  but 
acknowledge." — I  acknowledge  no  such  thing.  My  friends  have 
oftener  accused  me  of  being  too  stiff  in  my  opinions,  than  too  flexi- 
ble. My  enemies  have  accused  me  of  both  ;  and  of  every  thing  be- 
sides. The  truth  is,  from  the  year  1725,  I  saw  more  and  more  of 
the  nature  of  inward  religion,  chiefly  by  reading  the  writings  of  Mr. 
Law,  and  a  few  other  mystic  writers.  Yet  I  never  was  "in  the  way 
of  mysticism''^  at  all :  this  is  another  mistake.  Although  I  did  not 
clearly  see,  that  v/e  are  saved  by  faith,  till  the  year  1 738 ;  1  then 
published  the  sermon  on  Salvation  by  Faith,  every  sentence  of  which 
I  subscribe  to  now. 

17.  But  he  was  "  too  scrupulous  about  using  the  word  condition.'* 
(p.  143.)  I  was  so,  till  I  was  convinced  by  Dr.  Church,  that  it  was 
a  very  innocent  word,  and  one  that  none  of  the  reformers,  English 
or  foreign,  objected  to.  All  this  time  I  leaned  towards  Calvinism, 
though  more  in  expression  than  sentiment.  "  And  now  he  fairly 
gives  up  the  necessity  of  a  clear  ieZie/ of  justification  by  faith  alone  !" 
That  is,  I  say,  A  man  may  be  saved,  who  is  not  clear  in  his  judgment 
concerning  it.  I  do :  I  dare  not  "  rank  Mr.  Law  and  all  his  ad- 
mirers, among  the  hosts  of  Diabolonians."  Nay,  more  :  "  I  have 
proved,  that  he  makes  man's  righteousness  the  procuring  cause  of  his 
acceptance  with  God,  and  his  salvation,  horn  first  to  last,  to  depend 
upon  the  intrinsic  merit  o(  his  own  imassisled  works."  (p.  144.)  I 
think  Mr,  H.  "  is  now  got  to  his  neplns  ultra  ;"  unless  he  has  a  mind 
to  prove,  that  Mr.  W.  is  a  horse. 

18.  "I  expect  you  will  tell  me,  that  I  have  exposed  Mr.  W.  par- 
ticularly in  the  foregoing  contrast.  That  Mr.  W.  is  exposed,  I  al- 
low ;  but  that  I  have  exposed  him,  I  deny."  Who  was  it  then  ? 
Why,  "  out  of  his  own  mouth  all  that  I  have  brought  against  hinv 
proceeds." 

Not  so.  All  that  I  have  written  (except  one  sentence  out  of  a 
hundred  and  one)  is  well  consistent  with  itself,  provided  the  words 
be  taken  in  their  plain,  natural  sense,  and  one  part  of  them  in  con- 


OF  ALL  MR.  Wesley's  doctrines.  499 

nexion  with  the  other.  But  whoever  will  use  Mr.  H.'s  art  of  twist- 
ing and  torturing  words,  may  make  them  say  any  thing,  and  extracl 
Pelagianism,  Arianism,  or  any  thing  he  pleases,  out  of  any  thing  that 
can  be  spoken.  By  this  art,  he  that  cries  out  against  Mr.  F.'s  art, 
has  found,  that  is,  created  above  a  hundred  contradictions  in  my 
works,  and  "  could  find  abundance  more."  Ay,  five  hundred  :  un- 
der his  forming  hand,  contradictions  spring  up  as  quick  as  mush- 
rooms. And  he  that  reads  only  (as  is  the  manner  of  a  thousand 
readers,)  the  running  title  at  the  top  of  each  page. 


For  election. 
For  sinless  perfection. 
For  imputed  righteousness. 


Against  election. 
Against  sinless  perfection. 
Against  imputed  righteousness.' 


And  so  on,  will  readily  say,  "  What  a  heap  of  contradictions,  flat, 
palpable  contradictions,  is  here  !"  Here  !  Where  ?  "  Why,  at  the 
top  of  every  page."  True  ;  and  there  lies  the  strength  of  the  cause  ^ 
The  propositions  themselves  are  plain  enough,  but  neither  Mr.  H. 
nor  any  man  living  can  prove  them. 

1 9 .  But  if  so,  if  all  this  laboured  contrast  be  only  the  work  of  a 
creative  imagination,  what  has  Mr.  Hill,  the  cat's-paw  of  a  party, 
been  doing  all  this  time  ?  Has  he  not  been  abundantly  doing  evil,  that 
good  might  come,  that  the  dear  decree  of  reprobation  might  stand  ? 
Has  he  not  been  saying  all  manner  of  evil  falsely,  pouring  out  slan- 
der like  water,  a  first,  a  second,  a  third  time,  against  one  that  never 
willingly  offended  him  ?  And  what  recompense  can  he  make  (be  his 
opinions  right  or  wrong^  for  having  so  deeply  injured  me,  without 
any  regard  either  to  mercy  or  truth  1  If  he  (not  myself)  has  indeed 
exposed  me  in  so  unjust  and  inhuman  a  manner,  what  amends  can 
he  make,  as  a  Christian  and  a  gentleman,  to  God,  to  me,  or  to  the 
world  1  Can  he  gather  up  the  foul,  poisonous  water  which  he  has  so 
abundantly  poured  out  1  If  he  still  insists,  he  has  done  me  no 
wrong,  he  has  only  spoken  the  truth  in  love ;  if  he  is  resolved  at  all 
hazards  to  fight  it  out,  I  will  meet  him  on  his  own  ground.  Waiving 
all  things  else,  I  fix  on  this  point,  "  Is  that  scurrilous  hotch-potch, 
which  he  calls  a  Farrago,  true  or  false  ]"  Will  he  defend  or  retract, 
it  1  A  hundred  and  one  propositions  are  produced  as  mine,  which 
are  affirmed  to  contradict  other  propositions  of  mine.  Do  I  in  these 
hundred  and  one  instances,  contradict  myself,  or  do  I  not  1  Observe  : 
the  question  is,  whether  I  contradict  myself?  Not  whether  I  contra- 
dict some,  body  else  :  be  it  Mr.  Baxter,  Goodwin,  Fletcher,  the 
Christian  Library,  or  even  my  own  brother.  These  are  not  myself 
'•  Nay,  but  you  have  published  them."  If  I  publish  them  ten  times 
over,  still  they  are  not  myself  I  insist  upon  it,  that  no  man's  words 
but  my  own  can  ever  prove,  that  /  contradict  myself.  Now,  if  Mr, 
H.  scorns  to  yield,  let  him  fall  to  work,  and  prove  by  my  oum  words., 
that  /  contradict  myself  (that  is  the  present  question,)  in  these  hun- 
dred instances.  If  he  can  prove  this,  I  am  a  blunderer ;  I  must 
plead  guilty  to  the  charge.  If  he  cannot,  he  is  one  .of  the  most  cruel 
and  inhuman  slanderers,  that  ever  set  pen  to  paper. 


dOO  SOME   REMARKS    ON   MR.    UltL's   REVIEW 

go.  I  bless  God,  that  the  words  cited  from  the  sermon  on  a  Catho- 
Uc  Spirit,  do  quite  "come  to  myself:"  not  indeed  as  I  am  painted 
by  Mr.  H.  but  as  I  really  am.  From  the  year  1738,  I  have  not 
been  "  unsettled  as  to  any  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  gospel." 
No,  not  in  one  :  I  am  as  clear  of  this  charge,  as  of  that  wonderful 
one  advanced  in  the  note.  (p.  146.)  "  Though  this  sermon  be  en- 
titled Catholic  Spirit,  yet  it  inculcates  an  attendance  upon  one  only 
congregation :  in  other  words,  hear  me,  and  those  I  send  out,  and  no 
body  else.^*  Mr.  H.  himself  knows  better :  he  knows  I  advise  all  of 
the  church,  to  hear  the  parish  minister.  1  do  not  advise,  even  dis- 
senters of  any  kind,  not  to  hear  their  own  teachers.  But  I  advise 
all,  do  not  heap  to  yourselves  preachers,  having  itching  ears.  Do  not 
run  hither  and  thither  to  hear  every  new  thing ;  else  you  will  be  es- 
tablished in  nothing.  "  However,  it  is  by  stratagems  of  this  sort,  that 
he  holds  so  many  souls  in  his  shackles,  and  prevents  them  from 
coming  to  the  knowledge  of  all  the  glorious  truths  of  the  gospel.^* 

Observe,  Gospel  is  with  Mr.  H.  the  same  as  Calvinism.  So  where 
he  says  "  there  is  no  gospel,^*  he  means  no  predestination.  By  the 
same  figure  of  speech,  some  of  his  admirers  used  to  say,  *'  there  is 
no  honey  in  the  book."  Here  lies  the  core  :  this  is  the  wrong,  for 
which  the  bigots  of  this  gospel  will  never  forgive  me.  And  all  those 
are  such,  who  "  rank  all  election  doubters  among  DiaboloniansJ*^ 
Such  is  Mr.  H.  a  bigot  in  grain,  while  he  sets  his  hand  to  that  gentle 
sentence.  Nay,  further,  says  he,  "  I  cannot  help  informing  my  read- 
ers," (no,  if  he  did,  he  must  burst,)  "that  in  the  life  of  Mr.  Philip 
Henry,  published  in  his  Christian  Library,  he  has  artfully  left  out 
Mr.  Henry's  Confession  of  Faith."  Artfully!  No;  honestly;  ac- 
cording to  the  open  profession  in  the  preface  cited  before. 

21.  Yet  Mr.  H.  this  Mr.  H.  says  to  Mr.  Fl.  "Suffer  not  bitter 
ivords  and  calumnious  expressions  to  disguise  themselves  under  the 
appearance  of  plainness."  (p.  147.)  Bitter  words  !  Can  Mr.  H. 
imagine  there  is  any  harm  in  these  1  Mr.  H.  that  cites  the  judi- 
cious Mr.  Toplady  !  That  admires  the  famous  Eleven  Letters,  which 
are  bitterness  double  distilled  !  Which  overflow  with  little  else  but 
calumnious  expressions,  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  !  Mr.  H.  that 
himself  wrote  the  Revieio,  and  the  Farrago  !  And  does  he  complain 
of  Mr.  Fletcher's  bitterness  1  Why,  he  may  be  a  little  bitter  ;  but 
not  Mr.  F.  Altering  the  person  alters  the  thing!  "  If  it  was  your 
bull  that  gored  mine,  says  the  judge  in  the  fable,  that  is  another 
case !" 

22.  Two  objections  to  my  personal  conduct,  I  have  now  briefly 
to  consider.  1.  "  Mr.  W.  embraced  Mr.  Shirley  as  a  friend  at  the 
Conference,  and  then  directly  went  out  to  give  the  signal  for  war." 
(p.  150.)  This  is  partly  true.  It  is  true,  that  although  I  was  not 
ignorant  of  his  having  deeply  injured  me,  yet  I  freely  forgave  him  at 
the  Conference,  and  again  "  embraced  him  as  a  friend."  But  it  is 
not  true,  that  I  "  directly  went  out  to  give  the  signal  for  war." 
"  Nay,  why  else  did  you  consent  to  the  publishing  of  Mr.  F.'s  let- 
ters V     Because  I  judged  it  would  be  an  eflectual  means  of  undoinc;. 


OF  ALL   MR.    WESLEV'S   DOCTRINES.  001 

the  mischief  which  Mr.  S.  had  done.  Not  that  I  am  now  sorry 
(though  I  was)  for'  what  he  has  done,  for  his  pubhcation  of  that  bit- 
ter circular  letter.  For  I  now  clearly  discern  the  hand  of  God 
throughout  that  whole  affair.  Both  my  brother  and  I  still  indulged 
the  fond  hope  of  living  in  peace  with  our  ivarm  Calvinist  brethren : 
but  we  now  give  it  up  :  our  eyes  are  open  ;  we  see  what  we  have 
to  expect.  We  look  for  neither  mercy  nor  justice  at  their  hands  : 
if  we  find  any,  it  will  be  clear  gains. 

23.  The  second  objection  is,  "  Mr.  W.  acknowledged  the  un- 
guarded manner  in  which  the  Minutes  were  drawn  up  :  and  yet  im- 
mediately after  defended  them."  I  answer,  "  How  did  I  acknow- 
ledge the  unguarded  manner  ?"  The  plain  case  was  this.  I  seek 
peace,  and  would  do  any  thing  for  it,  which  I  can  with  a  safe  con- 
science. On  this  principle  it  was,  that  when  Mr.  S.  read  over  his 
declaration,  (I  say  his,  for  it  was  he  drew  it  up,  not  I,)  and  asked,  if 
we  agreed  thereto  ?  I  was  heartily  desirous  to  agree  with  him  as  far 
as  possible.  In  order  to  this,  after  altering  some  words,  1  asked  our 
brethren  if  they  were  willing  to  sign  if?  One  immediately  said, 
•'The  Minutes  are  not  unguarded ;  they  are  guarded  enough."  I 
said,  They  are  guarded  enough  for  you ;  but  not  for  those  who  seek 
occasion  against  us.  And  observe,  it  is  only  in  this  sense  that  I 
subscribed  to  that  expression.  But  I  will  not  affirm,  that  my  love 
of  peace  did  not  carry  me  a  little  too  far,  I  know  not  but  it  would 
have  been  better,  not  to  have  signed  the  paper  at  all. 

24.  So  much  for  the  Minutes.  Perhaps  it  may  be  expected,  that 
I  should  also  take  some  notice  of  Avhat  Mr.  H.  says  concerning 
Perfection.  All  his  arguments  indeed,  and  ten  times  more,  I  have 
answered  over  and  over.  But  if  it  is  required,  I  will  answer  once 
more  :  only  premising.  By  that  Perfection,  to  which  St.  Paul  directs 
jNIr.  H.  and  me  to  go  on,  Heb.  vi.  1,  I  understand  neither  more  nar 
less,  than  what  St.  John  terms  per/ecf  love,  1  John  iv.  18,  and  our 
Lord,  "  Loving  the  Lord  our  God  with  all  our  heart,  and  mind,  and 
soul,  and  strengtli."  If  you  choose  to  call  this  sinful  perfection,  (ra- 
ther than  sm?css)  you  have  my  free  leave. 

Mr.  H.'s  main  argument  against  this  is,  that  "  it  is  a  'popish  doc- 
trine." How  does  this  appear?  «  O,  Luther  says  so."  (p.  25.) 
This  will  not  do  :  it  is  only  second  hand  evidence.  "  It  crept  into 
the  church  first  in  the  fifth  century,  and  has  been  since  almost  gene- 
rally received  in  the  church  of  Rome."  (p.  49.)  How  is  this 
proved  1  Either  that  the  doctrine  of  perfect  love  crept  first  into  the 
church  in  the  fifth  century  1  Or,  that  it  has  been  since  almost  gene- 
rally received  in  the  church  of  Rome  1  Why,  "we  may  very  readily 
perceive  this,  by  the  following  extract  from  Bishop  Cowper."  I 
answer,  1.  This  is  but  second  hand  evidence  still.  2.  It  is  wide  of 
the  mark.  For  this  whole  extract  says  not  a  word  about  the  church 
of  Rome.  It  contains  only  a  few  citations  from  St.  Augustin  and 
St.  Bernard,  foreign  to  the  present  question  ;  and  one  from  St.  Am- 
brose, if  it  be  possible,  more  foreign  still.  None  of  these  touch 
.  either  of  the  points  in  question,  **  This  doctrine  crept  into  the 


602  S03IE   REMARKS   ON   MR.   HILL's   REVIEW 

churcli  in  the  fifth  century  :"  or,  "  It  has  been  (ever)  smee  almost 
generally  received  in  the  church  of  Rome." 

Here  I  must  beg  leave  to  put  Mr.  H.  in  mind  of  one  stated  rule 
in  controversy.  We  are  to  take  no  authorities  at  second  handy  but 
always  recur  to  the  originals.  Consequently,  words  of  St.  Bernard, 
or  twenty  saints  more,  copied  from  Bishop  Cowpcr,  prove  just  no- 
thing. Before  we  can  urge  the  authority  of  St.  Bernard  or  Am- 
brose, we  must  consult  the  authors  themselves,  and  tell  our  readers 
what  edition  we  use,  with  the  page  where  the  words  are  found : 
otherwise  they  cannot  form  a  judgment  either  of  the  fairness  of  the 
quotation,  or  of  the  sense  and  weight  of  it. 

Hitherto  then  we  have  not  one  tittle  of  proof,  that  this  is  b.  popish 
doctrine ;  that  it  ever  was,  or  is  now,  *'  almost  generally  received  in 
the  church  of  Rome  :"  (although  if  it  had,  this  would  be  no  conclu- 
sive argument  against  it :  as  neither  is  it  conclusive  against  the  doc- 
trine of  the  blessed  Trinity  :)  I  do  not  know  that  it  ever  was  :  but 
this  I  know ;  it  has  been  solemnly  condemned  by  the  church  of 
Rome.  It  has  been  condemned  by  the  Pope  and  his  whole  con- 
clave, even  in  this  present  century.  In  the  famous  bull  Unigenitus, 
(so  called  from  the  first  words,  Unigenitus  Deifilius,)  they  utterly 
condemn  the  uninterrupted  act,  (of  faith  and  love,  which  some  then 
talked  of,  of  continually  rejoicing,  praying,  and  giving  thanks,)  as 
dreadful  heresy  !  Now  in  what  pubhc  act  of  the  church  of  Rome  is 
the  doctrine  of  Perfection  maintained  1  Till  this  is  produced,  I  pray 
let  us  hear  no  more  that  Perfection  is  a  popish  doctrine. 

25.  However,  *'  the  distinction  between  sins  and  innocent  infirmi- 
ties is  derived  from  the  Romish  church."  (p.  56.)  How  does  this  ap- 
pear '/  Thus.  "  Two  of  her  devoted  champions,  Lindenus  and  Andra- 
dius,  distinguish  between  infirmities  and  sins."  Lindenus  and  An- 
dradius  !  Who  are  they  1  From  what  country  did  they  come  1  I  do 
not  know  the  men.  One  of  them,  for  aught  I  know,  might  serve  as 
an  interpreter  at  the  council  of  Trent.  What  then  ?  Was  he  an  au- 
thorized interpreter  of  the  doctrines  of  the  church  1  Nay,  and  how 
do  you  know,  that  they  did  speak  of  little  trifling  faults,  or  of  minute 
and  trivial  sins  ?  Did  you  ever  read  them "?  Pray  what  edition  of  their 
works  do  you  use  1  And  in  what  page  do  these  words  occur  1  Till 
we  know  this,  that  there  may  be  an  opportunity  of  examining  the 
books,  (though  I  fear  scarcely  worth  examining)  it  is  doing  too 
much  honour  to  such  quotations,  to  take  any  notice  of  them  at  all. 

^6.  Well,  now  for  the  buskins !  Now  spirat  tragicum  satis ! 
^*  And  this  is  the  doctrine  which  is  preached  to  more  than  thirty 
thousand  souls,  of  which  Mr.  W.  has  the  charge."  Then  I  am 
sure  that  it  is  high  time,  that  not  only  the  Calvinist  ministers,  but 
"  all  that  wish  well  to  the  interest  of  protestantism,"  (so  Mr.  S.  said 
before,)  "  should  in  a  body  protest  against  such  licentious  tenets." 
Blow  ye  the  trumpet  in  Sion  !  Gird  on  your  armour!  Make  ye  your- 
selves ready  for  battle !  Again  the  trumpet  sounds :  a  crusade  !  A 
holy  war  !  Down  with  the  heretics !  But  hold  !  what  spirit  are  you 
of  1  Are  you  foUowers  of  peace  ?   Then  bring  forth  your  strong  rea- 


OF  ALL  MR.  Wesley's  doctrines.  503 

sons :  speak  the  ii'uth  in  love^  and  we  are  ready  to  meet  you.  But 
really  all  this  talk  of  my  licentious  doctrine,  is  a  mere  copy  of  Mr. 
H.'s  countenance.  He  knows,  and  all  in  England  know,  (whoever 
have  heard  my  name,)  that  it  is  not  too  loose,  but  too  strict  doctrine 
I  am  constantly  accused  of.  Therefore  all  this  bluster,  about  "  my 
superseding  the  law,"  has  not  only  no  truth,  but  no  colour,  no  plausi-< 
bility.  And  when  Mr.  H.  calls  so  gravely  for  Dr.  Crisp,  to  "  sweep 
away  all  my  Antlnomian  rubbish,"  shall  we  laugh  or  weep  ? 

Cuivis  facilis  rigidi  censura  cachinni. 

Rather  let  us  drop  a  tear  on  human  infirmity. 

27.  So  much  for  the  first  grand  argument  against  perfection,  That 
it  is  generally  received  in  the  church  of  Rome.  The  second  is,  "  It 
was  generally  received  among  the  ranting  Anabaptists  in  Germany." 
(p.  49. )  What  author  of  note  testifies  this  *?  I  allow  no  second  hand 
authority ;  but  desire  to  know  what  German  historian  of  credit  has 
recorded  it"?  And  in  what  page  of  his  works]  When  this  is  ascer- 
tained, then  we  may  observe,  it  proves  just  nothing. 

A  third  argument  against  perfection  is,  that  "  it  was  maintained  by 
many  wild  ranters  in  London."  Wild  enough !  Although  no  stress 
is  to  be  laid  on  Mr.  H.'s  informations  concerning  them ;  some  of 
which  are  altogether  false,  and  the  rest  imperfect  enough.  But 
suppose  they  were  all  true,  what  would  follow?  Many  hearers 
abusing  the  doctrines  I  teach,  no  more  prove  that  those  doctrines  are 
false,  than  the  German  ranters  proved  that  Luther's  were  so. 

28.  Is  it  another  argument^  that  "  the  monstrous  doctrine  of  per- 
fection turns  some  of  its  deluded  votaries  into  monsters  !  (p.  44.) 
This  may  be  proved  from  the  cases  of  Bell  and  Harris  ;  the  former 
-of  whom  prophesied,  that  the  world  would  be  at  an  end  the  last  of 
February :  the  latter  was  seized  with  raging  madness,  and  died  blas- 
pheming in  a  most  dreadful  manner." 

U  would  "be  strange,  if  George  Bell  were  not  brought  upon  the 
stage,  as  he  has  been  a  hundred  times  over.  As  for  poor  Benjamin 
Harris,  I  believe,  as  a  punishment  for  his  pride  and  uncharitableness, 
God  permitted  him  to  be  struck  in  an  instant  with  diabolical  madness. 
But  it  did  not  continue  to  his  death ;  he  did  not  die  blaspheming.  I 
saw  him  myself  quiet  and  composed  :  and  he  calmly  delivered  up  his 
soul  to  God. 

See  another  instance.  "  A  friend  of  mine  lately  informed  me, 
that  an  eminent  preacher  of  perfection  told  him,  that  he  had  not 
sinned  for  some  years,  and  that  the  Holy  Ghost  had  descended  and 
sat  on  him  and  many  others  in  a  visible  manner,  as  he  did  upon 
the  apostles  in  the  day  of  Pentecost."  Please  to  name  the  man : 
otherwise  a  hundred  such  tales  will  weigh  nothing  with  men  of  scHse 
and  candour. 

Behold  a  fourth.  "  Last  year  I  myself  conversed  with  a  gentle- 
woman of  such  high  perfection,  that  she  said  no  man  could  teach  her 
any  thing,  and  went  to  no  place  of  worship  for  years  together :  how- 
ever, she  was  a  scold,  and  beat  her  maid."     Perhaps  so.     And  what 


504  SOME  REMARKS   ON  MR.  HILl's   REVIEW 

is  that  to  me  1  If  she  is  a  member  of  our  Society,  tell  me  her  name ' 
and  she  will  be  in  it  no  longer.  This  is  our  glorying.  It  must  ht 
that  many  members  of  our  Society  will  from  time  to  time  grow  weary 
of  well-doing ;  yea,  that  some  will  fall  into  sin.  But  as  soon  as  thifc 
appears,  they  have  no  more  place  among  us.  We  regard  no  man's 
person,  high  or  low,  rich  or  poor.  A  disorderly  walker  cannot  con- 
tinue with  us. 

Again.  "  One  told  God  in  prayer,  that  she  was  perfect,  as  God 
himself  was  perfect."  "Another  prayed.  Grant,  O  Lord,  that  all 
here  present  may  be  perfect  as  I  am  perfect."  (p.  45.)  Till  you 
name  the  men,  this  too  must  go  for  nothing.  But  suppose  it  all 
true,  what  will  it  prove  1     Only  that  there  are  madmen  in  the  world. 

"  I  could  also  tell  him  of  a  woman,  who  was  so  perfect,  that  she 
tried  to  sin  and  could  not."     Pray  name  her. 

"  Mr.  W.  must  also  well  remember  a  certain  perfect  married  lady, 
who  was  got  with  child  by  a  perfect  preacher."  I  do  not  remember 
any  such  thing.     I  never  heard  of  it  before. 

29.  But  "  I  hate,"  says  Mr.  H.  "the  law  of  retaliation." — Trulyone 
would  not  have  thought  it. — "And  would  not  have  mentioned  these 
things,  but  that  you  set  me  the  example,''  i.  e.  but  by  way  of  retali- 
ation. "  Should  you  doubt  the  truth  of  these  instances,  I  will  lead 
you  to  the  fountain-head  of  my  intelligence."  That  will  not  do.  In 
order  to  be  even  with  Mr.  F.  you  have  told  seven  shocking  stories. 
Several  of  these  i  know  to  be  false  :  I  doubt  if  any,  but  that  of 
George  Bell,  be  true.  And  now  you  offer  to  "lead  Mr.  F.  to  the 
fountain-head  of  your  intelligence  !"  Probably  to  one  or  two  rene- 
gade Methodists,  who  court  the  world  by  slandering  their  brethren  ! 
"  But  Mr;  W.  adopts  this  way."  No,  never.  In  my  letter  to  Mr. 
Hervey,  I  occasionally  name  two  famous  men  ;  but  I  do  not  slander 
them.  In  my  journals  I  name  several  others.  This  is  above  board  r 
but  Mr.  H.  stabs  in  the  dark.  He  gives  us  no  names,  no  places  of 
abode;  but  casts  arrows  and  firebrands  abroad.  And  let  them  li^ht 
where  they  may,  on  guilty  or  guiltless  :  of  that  he  takes  no  care. 

30.  It  remains  only,  to  consider  the  queries,  which  Mr.  H.  ad' 
dresses  directly  to  me. 

1.  "  Did  not  you  in  administering  the  sacrament  a  few  years  ago, 
to  a  perfect  society  in  West-street  chapel,  leave  out  the  confession  ?" 

Yes,  and  many  times  since.  When  I  am  straitened  for  time,  (as 
I  generally  am  there,  on  a  Monday,)  I  begin  the  communion  service 
at,  "  We  do  not  presume  to  come  to  this  thy  table."  On  Monday 
Mr.  Madan  desired  to  stay.  Here,  I  suppose,  is  "  the  fountain-head 
of  this  intelligence." 

3.  "  Did  not  one  of  the  enthusiasts  then  say,  he  had  heard  a  voice 
telling  him,  he  was  all  holiness  to  the  Lord  P" 

Possibly  so  :  but  I  remember  nothing  of  it. 

3.  "  Did  not  a  second  declare  the  same  thing  ?" 
Not  that  I  remember. 

4.  "  Did  not  George  Bell  say,  he  should  never  die  IV 
He  often  did,  if  not  then. 


■OP   AIX   MR.  WESLEV'S   DOCTRINES.  505 

■5.  "  Did  not  one  present  confirm  it  ?' 
Not  unlikely  :  but  I  do  not  remember  it. 

6.  "  Did  not  another  perfect  brother  say,  he  believed  the  millen- 
nium was  near :  for  there  had  been  more  constables  sworn  in  that 
year  than  heretofore  ?' 

Are  you  sure  he  was  a  perfect  brother  ?  i.  e.  one  that  professed  so  to 
be  ?  As  for  me,  I  can  say  nothing  about  it.  For  I  neither  remember 
the  man,  nor  the  words. 

"This  I  have  put  down  verbatim  from  the  mouth  of  a  judicious 
friend  then  present ;  but  from  that  lime  he  has  been  heartily  sick  of 
■sinless perfection."     Say  of  perfect  love. 

Is  it  only /ro??i  that  time  that  Mr.  Madan  has  been  sick  of  it]  Was 
he  not  sick  of  it  before? 

7.  "  Do  not  you  know  a  clergyman,  one  closely  connected  with 
you,  who  refused  a  great  witness  for  perfection  the  sacrament,  be- 
cause he  had  been  detected  in  bed  with  a  perfect  sister  .?" 

No.     I  never  heard  of  it  before.     Surely  Mr.  M d  is   not 

fallen  so  low  as  to  invent  such  a  tale  as  this  ! 

I  need  not  say  any  thing  to  your  last  anecdote,  since  you  (for 
once !)  "  put  a  candid  construction  upon  my  words."  If  I  did  speak 
them,  which  I  can  neither  affirm  nor  deny,  undoubtedly  my  meaning 
was,  (as  yourself  observe,)  "  Though  I  have  been  holding  forth  the 
imputed  righteousness  of  Christ  to  a  mixed  congregation,  yet  I  think 
it  right  to  caution  you  of  the  society,  how  you  abuse  that  doctrine, 
which  to  some,  who  turn  it  into  licentiousness,  is  a  smooth  doctrine, 
of  which  you  ought  to  beware."  (p.  61.)  But  your  friend,  it  seems, 
"  who  gave  you  this  account,"  did  not  put  so  candiil  a  construction 
on  my  words.  You  say,  "  he  was  so  struck,  as  hardly  to  refrain 
from  speaking  to  you  in  the  chapel.  And  from  that  hour  he  gave 
up  all  connections  with  you."  i.  e.  He  sought  a  pretence  ;  and  he 
found  one  ! 

And  now  what  does  all  this.amount  to  ]  Several  persons  who  pro- 
fessed high  things,  degenerated  into  pride  and  enthusiasm,  and  then 
talked  like  lunatics,  about  the  time  that  they  renounced  connection 
with  me,  for  mildly  reproving  them.  And  is  this  any  objection 
against  the  existence  of  that  love  which  they  professed?  Nay,  and  I 
verily  believed  once  enjoyed,  though  they  were  afterward  moved  from 
their  steadfastness.  Surely  no  more  than  a  justified  person's  running 
mad,  is  an  objection  against  justification.  Every  doctrine  must 
stand  or  fall  by  the  Bible.  If  the  perfection  I  teach  agree  with  this, 
it  will  stand,  in  spite  of  all  the  enthusiasts  in  the  world  :  if  not,  it 
cannot  stand. 

31.  I  now  look  back  on  a  train  of  incidents  that  have  occurred j 
for  many  months  last  past,  and  adore  a  wise  and  gracious  Provi- 
dence, ordering  all  things  well !  When  the  Circular  Letter  was  first 
tlispersed  throughout  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  I  did  not  conceive 
the  immense  good  which  God  was  about  to  bring  out  of  that  evil. 
But  no  sooner  did  Mr.  Fletchigr's  first  Letters  appear,  than  the  scene 
Jjegau  to  open.  And  the  desi^  of  Provijenc^  's'^tntd  more  aijd 
Vol.  9.— U  u  ^.^  ' 

\ 


j06  gOHl5   REMARKS  0^'  MR.    HILL's  REVIEW, 

more,  when  Mr.  S.'s  narrative,  and  Mr.  H.*s  letters,  constrained 
him  to  write  and  publish  his  Second  and  Third  Check  to  Antino- 
mianism.  It  was  then  indisputably  clear,  that  neither  my  brother  nor 
I  had  borne  a  sufficient  testimony  to  the  truth.  For  many  years, 
from  a  well-meant  but  ill-judged  tenderness,  we  had  suffered  the  re- 
probation preachers,  (vulgarly  called  gospel-preachers  !)  to  spread 
their  poison  almost  without  opposition.  But  at  length  they  have 
awakened  us  out  of  sleep :  Mr.  Hill  has  answered  for  all  his  brethren, 
roundly  declaring,  that  "  any  agreement  with  election-doubters  is  a 
covenant  with  death."  It  is  well :  we  are  now  fore-warned  and 
fore-armed.  We  look  for  neither  peace  nor  truce,  with  any  who  do 
not  openly  and  expressly  renounce  this  diabolical  sentiment.  But 
since  God  is  on  our  side,  we  will  not  fear  what  man  can  do  unto  us. 
We  never  before  saw  our  way  clear,  to  do  any  more  than  act  on  the 
defensive.  But  since  the  Circular  Letter  has  sounded  the  alarm,  has 
called  forth  all  their  hosts  to  war  ;  and  since  Mr.  H.  has  answered 
the  call,  drawing  the  sword,  and  throwing  away  the  scabbard  :  what 
remains,  but  to  own  the  hand  of  God,  and  make  a  virtue  of  neces- 
sity 1  I  will  no  more  desire  any  Jirminian,  so  called,  to  remain  only 
on  the  defensive.  Rather  chase  the  fiend,  Reprobation,  to  his  own 
hell,  and  every  doctrine  connected  with  it.  Let  none  pity  or  spare 
one  limb  of  either  speculative  or  practical  Antinomianism :  or  of 
any  doctrine  that  naturally  tends  thereto,  hoAvever  veiled  under  the 
specious  name  of  Free-Grace.  Only  remembering,  that  however 
we  are  treated  by  men,  who  have  a  dispensation  from  the  vulgar  rules 
of  justice  and  mercy,  we  are  not  to  fight  them  at  their  own  weaponry 
lo  return  railing  for  railing.  Those  who  plead  the  cause  of  the  God 
of  love,  are  to  imitate  him  they  serve  :  and  however  provoked,  tc 
use  no  other  weapons  than  those  of  truth  and  love,  of  scripture  and 
reason. 

32.  Having  now  answered  the  queries  you  proposed,  suffer  me. 
Sir,  to  propose  one  to  you :  the  same  which  a  gentleman  of  your 
own  opinion  proposed  to  me  some  years  since.  "  Sir,  how  is  it  that 
as  soon  as  a  man  comes  to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth,  it  spoils  his 
temper]"  That  it  does  so  I  had  observed  over  and  over,  as  well  as 
Mr.  J.  had.  But  how  can  we  account  for  it  1  Has  the  truth,  (so  Mr, 
.f.  termed  what  many  love  to  term  the  doctrine  of  free-grace,)  a  natu- 
ral tendency  to  spoil  the  temper?  To  inspire  pride,  haughtiness,  su- 
perciliousness'? To  make  a  man  iviser  in  Ms  own  eyes  than  seven  men 
■hat  can  render  a  reason  ?  Does  it  naturally  turn  a  man  into  a  cynic., 
a  bear,  a  Toplady  1  Does  it  at  once  set  him  free  from  all  the  re- 
straints of  good-nature,  decency,  and  good-manners  1  Cannot  a  man 
hold  distinguishing  grace,  as  it  is  called,  but  he  must  distinguish  him- 
self for  passion,  sourness,  bitterness  1  Must  a  man  as  soon  as  he 
'ooks  upon  himself  to  be  an  absolute  favourite  of  heaven,  look  upon 
(U  that  oppose  him  as  Diabolonians,  as  predestinated  dogs  of  hell  ? 
Truly,  the  melancholy  instance  noAv  before  us,  would  almost  induce 
IS  to  think  so.  For  who  was  of  a  more  amiable  temper  than  Mr, 
'1111^  a  few  years  ago  1  When  I  first  conversed  with  him  in  London- 


MR.   hill's   FAItRAGO   DOtJBLE-DISTILLET).  507 

I  thought  I  had  seldom  seen  a  man  of  fortune,  who  appeared  to  be 
of  a  more  humble,  modest,  gentle,  friendly  disposition.  And  yet 
this  same  Mr.  H.  when  he  has  once  been  grounded  in  the  knoicledge 
of  the  truth,  is  of  a  temper  as  totally  different  from  this,  as  light  is 
from  darkness  !  He  is  now  haughty,  supercilious,  disdaining  his  op- 
ponents, as  unworthy  to  be  set  with  the  dogs  of  his  flock  !  He  is 
violent,  impetuous,  bitter  of  spirit !  In  a  word,  the  author  of  the 
Review  ! 

O  Sir,  what  a  commendation  is  this  of  your  doctrine  1  Look  at 
Mr.  H.  the  Jlrminian  !  The  loving,  amiable,  generous,  friendly  man. 
Look  at  Mr.  H.  the  Calvinist !  Is  it  the  same  person?  This  spiteful, 
morose,  touchy  man  ?  Alas,  what  has  the  knowledge  of  the  truth 
done  ?  What  a  deplorable  change  has  it  made  1  Sir,  I  love  you  still ; 
though  I  cannot  esteem  you  as  I  did  once.  Let  me  entreat  you,  if 
not  for  the  honour  of  God,  yet  for  the  honour  of  your  cause,  avoid 
for  the  time  to  come,  all  anger,  all  spite,  all  sourness  and  bitterness, 
all  contemptuous  usage  of  your  opponents,  not  inferior  to  you,  un- 
less in  fortune.  O  put  on  again  bowels  of  mercies,  kindness,  gentleness, 
long-suffering ;  endeavouring  to  hold,  even  with  them  that  differ  from 
you  in  opinion,  the  unity  of  the  Spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace ! 

Bristol,  Sept.  9,  1772. 


SOME  REMARKS 

ON 

MR.  HILL'S  FARRAGO  DOUBLE-DISTILLED. 


"  If  it  be  possible,  as  much  as  lieth  in  you,  live  peaceably  with  all  men." 

Rom.  xii.  IS. 


1.  IT  is  far  from  my  design  to  give  a  particular  answer  to  every 
thing  contained  in  Mr.  Hill's  late  treatise.  I  intend  only  to  offer  to 
the  impartial  reader,  a  few  cursory  remarks,  which  may  partly  ex- 
plain and  partly  confirm  what  I  have  already  said  upon  the  subject. 

2.  "  Poor  Mr.  Wesley,"*  says  Mr.  Hill,  opening  his  cause  with 
native  eloquence,  "has  published  various  tracts,  out  of  which  Mr. 
Hill  collects  above  a  hundred  gross  contradictions.     At  this  Mr. 

*  Page  3.  Quotations  from  Mr.  Hill  are  marked  with  double,  from  the  Remarks-, 
with  single  commas. 


5Qi  SOME   REMAHKS   OS   ME.    IIILL's 

W.'s  temper  is  much  ruffled  ;"  (I  believe  not ;  I  am  not  sensible  o'i 
it ;)  "he  primes,  cocks,  and  fires  at  Calvinism  :  and  there  is  smoke 
and  fire  in  plenty.  But  if  you  can  bear  the  stench,  (which  indeed 
is  very  nauseous)  there  is  no  danger  of  being  wounded,  (p.  4.) 
He  calls  this  last  cannon,  or  pop-gun,  Remarks  on  my  Review. 
Men  of  sense  say,  it  is  quite  unfit  for  duty:  men  of  grace  compas- 
sionate the  caster  of  it :  men  of  pleasantry  laugh  heartily  at  it ;  but 
some  good  old  women  speak  highly  of  it."  (p.  5.)  I  give  this  pas- 
sage at  some  length,  as  a  genuine  specimen  of  Mr.  Hill's  manner  of 
writing, 

3.  But  "  as  Mr.  Hill  did  not  choose  to  prefix  his  name,  it  argued 
no  great  proof  of  Mr.  W.'s  politeness,  to  address  him  in  the  personal 
manner  he  has  done."  Which  of  us  began?  Was  it  not  Mr.  Hill  ? 
Did  not  he  address  me  in  a  personal  manner  first  ?  And  some,  be- 
side the  old  women,  are  of  opinion,  he  did  not  do  it  in  the  politest 
manner  in  the  world. 

4.  "  Mr.  W.  would  have  us  know,  that  his  piece  is  written  in 
much  love.  But  what  love  ?  Love  to  his  own  inconsistencies  ;  love 
of  scolding,  love  of  abuse.  Let  the  reader  find  out  any  other  sort 
of  love  through  the  whole  performance."  In  order  to  judge  whe- 
ther I  wrote  in  love  or  not,  let  any  one  read  the  words  he  has  picked 
out  of  fifty-four  pages,  just  as  they  stand  connected  with  others  in 
each  page  :  it  will  then  appear  they  are  not  contrary  either  to  love 
or  meekness. 

5.  But  Mr.  W.  says,  INIr.  Hill  "is  unworthy  the  name  either  of 
the  gentleman  or  the  Christian :  and  is  amazed,  that  Mi*.  Hill  shoidd 
lay  claim  to  either  of  those  titles.''  (p.  6.)  Not  so.  It  is  my  be- 
lief, that  JMr.  Hill  is  both  a  gentleman  and  a  Christian  :  though  I  still 
think,  in  his  treatment  of  Mr.  Fletcher  and  me,  he  has  acted  be- 
neath his  character.  Yet  it  is  very  likely,  "  a  friend  of  yours,  (not 
mine,)  might  say,  I  wrote  in  much  lorath."  (p.  7.)  I  wrote  then  in 
just  as  much  wrath  as  i  do  now  ;  though  your  friend  might  think 
otherwise. 

6.  Nay,  but  Mr.  W.  "  gives  all  the  Calvinist  ministers  the  most 
scurrilous,  Billingsgate  language,  while  he  is  trumpeting  forth  his 
own  praises,  in  Mr,  F.'s  Second  Check  to  Antinomianism."  (p.  8.) 
A  small  mistake .  1  do  not  give  Billingsgate  language  to  any  one  : 
I  have  not  so  learned  Christ.  Every  one  of  those  hymns  out  of 
which  Mr.  Hill  culls  the  harshest  expressions,  are  not  mine,  but  my 
brother's.  Neither  do  I  "trumpet  forth  my  own  praises."  Mr. 
Hill's  imagining  I  do,  arises  from  an  innocent  mistake.  He  con- 
tinually takes  for  granted,  that  I  read  over  and  correct  all  Mr.  F.'s 
books  before  they  go  to  the  press.  So  far  from  it,  that  the  Fourth 
Check  to  Antinomianism  I  have  not  read  over  to  this  day.  But  Mr. 
W,  "  tliinks  himself  to  be  the  greatest  minister  in  the  icorhV^  Ex- 
ceedingly far  from  it.  I  know  many  now  in  England,  at  whose  feet 
1  desire  to  be  "found  in  the  day  of  the  Lord  Jesus. 

7.  To  that  question,  Why  does  a  man  'fall  upon  me,  because 
another  gave  him  a  good  beating?  Mr,  Hill  answers,   "If  yoiu 


FARliAGO   DOUBLE-DISTILLED.  509 

/runipet  had  not  given  the  alarm,  we  should  not  have  prepared  our 
selves  for  the  battle."  (p.  53.)  Nay  truly,  not  mine,  but  Mr.  Shir- 
ley's. I  was  sitting-  quietly  in  my  study,  on  the  other  side  of  St. 
George's  channel,  when  his  trumpet  gave  the  alarm.  Yet  I  say 
again,  I  am  not  now  sorry  for  these  disputes  though  I  was  sorry. 
You  say,  truly,  "Mr.  W.'s  temper  has  been  manifested"  hereby,  (p. 
56.)  Let  all  candid  men  judge  between  us,  Whether  Mr.  F.  and  I 
on  the  one  hand,  or  Mr.  Hill  on  the  other,  had  shown  more  "  meek- 
ness and  lowliness  V  And  which  of  us  has  expressed  the  greatest 
heat,  and  the  most  coruial  contempt  of  his  opponent. 

Mr.  H.  adds,  "  Hereby  Mr.  Charles  Wesley's  Calvinism  is  exposed 
by  Mr.  John."  Then  that  is  exposed,  which  never  existed,  for  he 
never  was  a  Calvinist  yet.  Aad  "herelsy  Mr.  H.  says,  the  Christian 
Library  is  given  up  as  nothing."  Mere  finesse  !  Every  one  sees  my 
meaning,  but  those  that  will  not  see  it.  It  is  nothing  to  your  purpose  : 
it  proves  nothing  of  what  it  is  brought  to  prove.  In  the  same  sense  I 
set  the  word  nothing  over  against  the  citations  from  Mr.  Baxter  and 
Goodwin. 

S.  If  JNIr,  Hill  says,  he  always  ivas  a  Calvinist,  I  have  no  right  to 
contradict  him.  But  I  am  sure  he  was  of  a  widely  different  temper, 
from  that  he  has  shown  in  his  late  writings.  I  allow  much  to  his 
belief,  that  in  exposing  me  to  the  utmost  of  his  power,  he  is  doing 
God  service.  Yet  1  must  needs  say,  if  I  were  writing  against  a 
Turk  or  a  Pagan,  I  durst  not  use  him  as  Mr.  Hill  does  me.  And 
if  I  really  am,  (which  will  one  day  appear,)  employing  all  my  time, 
and  labour,  and  talents,  (such  as  they  are)  for  this  single  end,  that 
the  kingdom  of  Christ  may  be  set  up  on  earth  :  then  he  whom  I 
serve  in  the  gospel  of  his  Son,  will  not  commend  him  for  his  present 
work. 

9.  But  what  makes  Mr.  Hill  so  warm  against  me  1  I  still  believe 
it  is  for  this  chiefly,  because  I  am  an  Arminian,  an  Election-doubter. 
For,  says  he,  the  "good  old  prcricher,  places  all  election-doubters, 
(that  is,  those  who  are  not  clear  in  the  belief  of  Absolute  Predesti- 
nation,) among  the  numerous  hosts  of  the  Diabolonians.  One  of 
these  being  brought  before  the  judge,  the  judge  tells  him  he  must 
die."  (p.  35.)  That  is  plainly,  he  must  die  eternally  for  this  damna- 
ble sin.  I  beg  Mr.  Hill  to  explain  himself  on  this  head.  Does  he 
still  subscribe  to  the  sentence  of  this  good  old  preacher  ?  Are  all 
election-doubters  to  be  placed  among  the  Diabolonians  1  Is  the  sen- 
tence irreversibly  passed.  That  they  must  all  die  eternally  ?  I  must 
insist  on  Mr.  Hill's  answering  this  question :  if  not,  silence  gives 
consent. 

10.  Mr.  H.  farther  affirms,  "  The  only  cement  of  Christian  union 
is  the  love  of  God.  And  the  foundation  of  that  love  must  be  laid, 
in  believing  the  truths  of  God:''^  that  is,  you  must  believe  particular  re- 
demption, or  it  is  impossible  you  should  love  God.  For,  to  use  "  the 
words  of  Dr.  Owen  in  his  display  of  Arminianism,"  (see  what  truths 
Mr.  Hill  means  !)  "  an  agreement  without  truth  is  no  peace,  but  a 
covenant  with  death,  and  a  conspiracy  against  the  kingdom  of  Christ." 

Uu  2 


610  SOIflE   REMARKS   ON  MR.   HILl's 

(p.  93.)  Here  again  I  beg  an  explicit  answei'.  Will  Mr.  H.  afiirrw 
this  in  cool  blood  ]  If  he  will,  there  needs  no  more  to  account  for 
his  enmity  both  to  me  and  the  Minutes.  "  Nay  but  the  foundation 
is  struck  at  by  those  wretched  Minutes."  (p.  52.)  True,  the  foun- 
dation of  Calvinism.  So  I  observed  before  ;  I  know  it  well.  If 
the  Minutes  stand,  Calvinism  falls.  But  Mr.  Hill  says,  "The  doc- 
trines of  election  and  perseverance  are  very  little,  indeed  scarcely 
at  all  dwelled  on  in  the  Review."  Now  I  think  they  are  very 
much  dwelt  on  therein,  and  desire  any  that  have  eyes  to  judge. 

11.  We  come  now  to  the  main  question,  Is  the  Farrago  true  oi 
false?  I  aver  it  to  be  totally  false  :  except  in  one  single  article  out 
of  a  hundred  and  one.  I  mean  Mr.  Hill  has  not  proved  that  I  con- 
tradict myself  except  in  that  single  instance.  To  come  to  par- 
ticulars. 

I. 

"  1.  There  was  an  everlasting  covenant  between  the  Father  and 
Son,  concerning  man's  redemption.  (There  never  was  such  a  co- 
venant.") 

The  former  proposition  is  taken  from  the  Christian  Library  :  on 
which  Mr.  Hill  says  again,  "  Mr.  W.  affirms,  that  the  Christian 
Library  is  all  true,  all  agreeable  to  the  loord  oj  GocV^  I  answered 
before,  <  I  do  not.'  (Rem.  p.  12.)  My  words  are,  (Pref.  p.  4,)  '1  have 
endeavoured  to  extract  such  a  collection  of  English  divinity,  as  /  be- 
lieve, is  all  true,  ail  agreeable  to  the  oracles  of  God.'  I  did  believe. 
and  do  believe,  every  tract  therein  to  be  true,  and  agreeable  to  the 
oracles  of  God.  But  I  do  not  roundly  affirm  this  '  of  every  sentence 
contained  in  the  fifty  volumes.  I  could  not  possibly  affirm  it,  for 
two  reasons,  1 .  I  was  obliged  to  prepare  most  of  those  tracts  for  the 
press  just  as  I  could  snatch  time  in  travelling ;  not  transcribing 
them  ;  (none  expected  it  of  me,)  but  only  marking  the  lines  witii 
my  pen,  and  altering  a  few  words  here  and  there,  as  I  had  men- 
tioned in  the  preJace.  2.  As  it  was  not  in  my  power  to  attend  the 
press,  that  care  necessarily  devolved  on  others ;  through  whose  in- 
attention a  hundred  passages  were  left  in,  which  I  had  scratched 
out.  It  is  probable  too,  that  I  myself  might  overlook  some  sen- 
tences, winch  were  not  suitable  to  my  own  principles.  It  is  certain, 
the  correctors  of  the  press  did  this,  in  not  a  few  instances.  The 
plain  inference  is,  if  there  are  a  hundred  passages  in  the  Christian 
Library,  which  contradict  any  or  all  of  my  doctrines,  these  are  no 
proofs  that  I  contradict  myself  Be  it  observed  once  for  all,  there- 
fore, citations  from  the  Christian  Library,  prove  nothing  but  the 
carelessness  of  the  correctors.' 

12.  Yet  Mr.  Hill,  as  if  he  had  never  seen  a  word  of  this,  or  had 
solidly  refuted  it,  gravely  tells  us  again  "  If  Mr.  W.  may  be  credit- 
ed, the  Farrago  is  all  true :  part  of  it  being  taken  out  of  Ids  oicn 
Christian  Library,  in  the  preface  of  which  he  tells  us,  that  the  con- 
tents are  all  true,  all  agreeable  to  the  oracles  of  God.  Therefore  every 
single  word  oi  it  is  his  own,  either  by  birth  or  adoption."  (p.  12.; 
No :  I  never  adopted,  I   could  not  adopt  every  single  tnQrd  of  the 


FARRAGO   DOUBLE-DISTILLED.  Sit 

Clirlstlan  Library.     It  was  impossible  I  should  have  such  a  thought/ 
for  the  reasons  above  mentioned. 

But  "there  is  very  great  evasion,"  (p.  16.)  says  Mr.  Hill,  "in 
Mr.  W.'s  saying,  that  though  he  believes  every  tract  to  be  true,  yet  he 
will  not  be  answerable  for  every  sentence  or  expression  in  the  Christian 
Library  :  whereas  the  matter  by  no  means  rests  upon  a  few  sen- 
tences or  expressions,  but  upon  ivJiole  treatises,  which  are  diame- 
trically opposite  to  Mr.  W.'s  present  tenets  ;  particularly  the 
treatises  of  Dr.  Sibs,  Dr.  Preston,  Bishop  Beveridge,  and  Dr.  Owen, 
on  Indwelling  Sin." 

13.  Just  before  Mr.  H.  affirmed,  "Every  single  loord  in  the  Chris- 
tian Library  is  his  oivn.^^  Beaten  out  of  this  hold,  he  retreats  to  an- 
other :  but  it  is  as  untenable  as  the  former.  "  The  matter,"  he  says, 
"  does  not  rest  on  a  few  sentences  :  whole  treatises  are  diametrically 
opposite  "to  his  present  tenets."  He  instances  in  the  works  of 
Dr.  Sibs,  Preston,  Beveridge,  and  a  treatise  of  Dr.  Owen's. 

I  join  issue  with  him  on  this  point.  Here  I  pin  him  down.  The 
works  of  Dr.  Preston  and  Sibs,  are  in  the  ninth  and  tenth  volumes 
of  the  Library :  that  treatise  of  Dr.  Owen's  in  the  seventeenth ; 
that  of  Bishop  Beveridge  in  the  forty-seventh.  Take  which  ot 
them  you  please :  suppose  the  last,  Bishop  Beveridge's  Thoughts 
upon  Religion.  Is  this  ichole  treatise  "  diametrically  opposite  to  my 
present  tenets  1"  The  Resolutions  take  up  the  greatest  part  of  the 
book  ;  every  sentence  of  which  exactly  agrees  with  my  present  judg- 
ment ;  so  do  at  least  nine  parts  in  ten  of  the  preceding  Thoughts, 
on  Avhich  those  Resolutions  are  formed.  Now  what  could  possibly 
induce  a  person  of  Mr.  Hill's  character,  a»  man  of  a  good  under- 
standing and  of  a  generous  temper,  a  well-bred  gentleman  and  a 
serious  Christian,  to  violate  all  the  rules  of  justice  and  truth,  which 
at  other  times  he  so  earnestly  defends,  by  positively,  deliberately, 
roundly  asserting  so  entire  a  falsehood,  merely  to  blacken  one 
Avho  loves  his  person,  who  esteems  his  character,  and  is  ready  to 
serve  him  in  any  thing  within  his  power  !  What  but  so  violent  an 
attachment  to  his  opinion,  as  while  that  is  in  danger,  suspends  all 
his  faculties,  so  that  he  neither  can  feel,  nor  think,  nor  speak  like 
himself] 

14.  In  the  ninth  and  tenth  volumes  are  two  treatises  of  Dr.  Pres^ 
ton's.  The  Breastplate  of  Faith  and  Love,  and  The  JSTew  Covenant.  Is 
either  of  these  "  diametrically  opposite  to  my  present  tenets."  By 
no  means.  If  Q.few  sentences  here  and  there  (and  this  I  only  suppose, 
not  grant)  were  carelessly  left  in,  though  I  had  scratched  them  out, 
which  seem  (perhaps  only  seem)  to  contradict  them;  these  are  not 
the  u'hole  tracts:  the  general  tenor  of  which  I  still  heartily  subscribe  tc. 

The  tenth  volume  likewise  contains  Two  sermons  of  Dr.  Sibs, 
and  his  Tract  upon  Solomon's  Song.  Are  any  of  these  "  diametri- 
cally opposite  to  my  present  tenets  1"  No  more  than  those  of  Dr. 
Preston's.     I  as  willingly  as  ever  subscribe  to  these  also. 

Is  Dr,  Owen's  tract.  Of  the  Remainder  of  Indicelling  Sin  in  Be- 
lievers, *•  diametrically  opposite  to  my  present  tenets  ?'  So  far  from  it^ 


oi2  SOME   REMARKS    ON   MR.   HILL  S 

that  a  few  years  since,  I  published  a  sermon  on  the  very  same  sub- 
ject. 1  hope  there  is  no  room  to  charge  me  with  "  quirif,  quibble, 
artifice,  evasion,"  on  ihis  head ;  (though  I  believe  as  much  as  on  any 
other.)  I  use  only  piahi,  manly  reasoning;  and  such  logic  I  am  not 
ashamed  to  avow  before  the  whole  learned  world. 

15.  But  "I  will  go  farther  still,"  says  Mr.  Hill.  "Let  Mr.  W, 
only  bring  me  twenty  lines  together,  out  of  the  writings  of  those  four 
eminent  divines,  as  they  stand  in  the  Christian  Library  :  and  I  will 
engage  to  prove,  that  he  has  twenty  times  contradicted  them  in  some 
of  his  other  pubhcations,"  (p.  19.)  Agreed.  I  bring  him  the  follow- 
ing twenty  lines  with  which  Dr.  Preston  begins  his  treatise  called 
The  JVeiv  Covenant.   (Vol.  X.  p.  47.) 

These  words  of  God  to  Abraham  contain  a  precept  of  sincerity, 
or  perfect  walking  with  God,  "  Walk  before  me,  and  be  thou  per- 
fect ;"  and  also  the  motive  thereunto,  God's  all-sufficiency,  "  I  am 
God  all-sufficient."  As  if  he  should  say,  if  there  were  any  defect  in 
me,  if  thou  didst  need  or  couldst  desire  any  thing  that  were  not  to  be 
had  in  me,  and  thou  mightest  have  it  elsewhere,  perhaps  thy  heart 
might  be  imperfect  in  walking  towards  me.  Thou  mightest  then  step 
out  from  me,  to  take  in  advantages  elsewhere.  But  seeing  I  am  all- 
sufficient  ;  since  I  have  enough  in  me  to  fulfil  all  thy  desires  ;  since 
I  am  every  way  an  adequate  object,  so  that  all  thy  soul  can  wish  for, 
thou  mayest  have  in  me ;  why  then  shouldst  thou  not  consecrate 
thyself  to  me  alone?  Why  then  shouldst  thou  be  uneven  in  thy  ways, 
serving  me  sometimes,  and  sometimes  the  creature  ]  For  there  is  no- 
thing in  the  creature,  but  thou  mayest  find  in  me.  "I  am  all-suffi- 
cient :  therefore  walk  bofore  me,  and  be  thou  perfect !" 

Here  are  exactly  twenty  lines,  neither  more  nor  less,  "  as  they 
stand  in  the  Christian  Library."  Now  fulfil  your  engagement; 
prove  that  I  "  have  twenty  times  contradicted  them  in  some  other  of 
my  publications."  If  you  cannot,  acknowledge  you  have  done  mc 
wrong.  In  the  heat  of  your  resentment,  you  have  undertaken  what 
you  are  not  able  to  perform.  You  have  spoken  rashly  and  unad- 
visedly. You  have  gone  much  too  far,  far  beyond  the  bounds  of  wis- 
dom as  well  as  of  love. 

1 6.  Nay,  but  "  I  will  go  one  step  farther  yet,  I  defy  Mr.  W.  to 
bring  me  twenty  lines  out  of  the  above  tracts,  by  Preston,  Sibs, 
Owen,  and  Beveridge,  which  he  now  believes."  Is  it  possible,  that 
Mr.  II.  should  believe  himself,  while  he  is  talking  at  this  rate  ?  Or 
does  he  expect  that  any  one  else  should  beheve  him,  unless  he  be 
ih'unk  with  passion  or  prejudice  1  Was  ever  any  thing  so  wild  ?  But  I 
accept  of  this  challenge,  and  that  with  more  seriousness  than  it  de- 
serves. I  will  go  no  farther  than  the  twenty  lines  cited  above  :  all 
these  I  "  now  believe."  And  I  believe,  as  I  said  before,  not  only 
the  whole  treatise  from  which  those  words  are  taken,  but  the  tenor- 
of  the  whole  Christian  Library. 

Mean  time  it  has  been  acknowledged  again  and  again,  that  several 
sentences  stand  therein,  which  1  had  put  out  in  my  usual  manner,  by 
drawing  my  pen  through  them.     Be  it  observed  therefore  once  more, 


J-ARRAGO  DOUBLE-DISTILLfifl.  ^13' 

(Imt  those  passages  prove  nothing  but  the  carelessness  of  the  correct- 
ors ;  consequently  all  the  pains  bestowed  to  collect  them  together, 
whether  by  Mr.  Hill  or  his  coadjutors,  is  absolutely  lost  labour,  and 
never  can  prove  that  f  contradict  myself. 

1 7.  The  case  is  nearly  the  same  with  regard  to  those  other  tracts 
which  I  published  many  years  ago,  Mr,  Baxter's  aphorisms  onjustiji-' 
cation,  and  John  Goodwill's  tract  on  the  subject.  I  have  lately  read 
them  both  over  with  all  the  attention  I  am  capable  of:  and  I  still 
believe  they  contain  the  true  scripture-doctrine  concerning  justifica- 
tion by  faith  :  but  it  does  not  follow,  that  I  am  accountable  for  every 
sentence  contained  in  either  of  those  treatises. 

"  But  does  Mr.  W.  believe  the  doctrine  therein  contained,  or  does 
he  not  1"  I  do  ;  and  John  Goodwin  believed  the  doctrine  contained 
in  the  sermon  on  "  The  Lord  our  Righteousness  :"  the  sum  of  which 
is,  '  We  are  justified,  sanctified,  and  glorified,  for  the  sake  of  what 
Christ  has  done  and  suffered  for  us.'  Nothing  he  asserts  is  inconsist- 
ent with  this,  though  it  may  be  inconsistent  with  passages  left  in  the 
Christian  Library:  when  therefore  I  write  nothing  against  those  pas- 
sages, or  the  extracts  from  Goodwin,  that  contradict  them,  this  does 
not  prove  (as  Mr.  Hill  archly  says)  that  "  I  have  nothing  to  say,"  but 
that  all  those  passages  and  extracts  put  together  are  nothing  to  the 
purpose.  For  were  it  true  that  John  Goodwin  and  Richard  Baxter 
contradicted  all  those  passages,  it  is  nothing  to  the  point  in  hand  ;  it 
never  can  prove,  that  I,  Jolm  Wesley,  contradict  myself 

18.  But  to  return  to  the  Everlasting  Covenant.  "  Mr.  W.  himself, 
in  his  annotations  on  Gen.  i.  1,  calls  the  Elohim  a  covenant  God.'^ 
True,  in  covenant  with  man.  But  I  say  not  one  word  of  any  cove- 
nant between  the  Father  and  the  Son.  But  "  in  his  note  on  Isa.  Iv. 
4,  speaking  of  the  covenant  made  between  God  and  David,  he  says. 
*  This  David  is  Christ.'  Undoubtedly  I  do:  but  v/hat  is  this  brought 
to  prove  ]  My  words  are,  "  I  have  appointed,  and  will  in  due  time 
give  him — the  David  last  mentioned,  even  Christ — a  ivilness — to  de- 
clare the  will  of  God  concerning  the  duty  and  salvation  of  men,  to 
bear  witness  to  the  truth,  to  confirm  God's  promises,  and  among 
others,  those  which  respect  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles :  to  be  a  wit- 
ness to  both  parties  of  that  covenant  made  between  God  and  man.^  (p, 
209.)  Yea,  of  the  covenant  made  between  God  and  man  !  Of  a  cove- 
nant between  the  Father  and  the  Son  here  is  not  a  word. 

"  The  only  possible  conclusion  to  be  drawn  from  this  defence  of 
Mr.  W.'s  is.  That  he  became  a  commentator  on  the  Bible,  before  he 
could  read  the  Bible."  That  is  pity  !  If  he  could  not  read  it  when 
he  was  three-score  years  old,  I  doubt  he  never  will.  See  the  can- 
dour, the  good-nature  of  Mr.  Hill !  Is  this  ^ttic  salt,  or  wormwood  ? 

What  conclusion  can  be  possibly  drawn  in  favour  of  Mr.  Hill  ] 
The  most  favourable  I  can  draw  is  this,  That  he  never  read  the  book 
which  he  quotes  :  that  he  took  the  word  of  some  of  his  friends.  But 
how  shall  we  excuse  them  ?  I  hope  they  trusted  their  memories,  not 
•heir  eyes.  But  what  recompense  can  he  make  to  me,  for  publishing 


of 4  SOME  IlEMARKS  0»  MR.  HILL'^ 

SO  gross  a  falsehood;  which  nevertheless  those  who  read  Ms  tract, 
and  not  mine,  will  take  to  be  as  true  as  the  gospel  1 

II. 
O  Election  and  Perseverance. 

19.  In  entering  upon  this  head,  I  observed,  *  Mr.  Sellon  has 
clearly  shown,  that  the  seventeenth  article  does  not  assert  absolute 
predestination.  Therefore  in  denying  this,  I  neither  contradict  that 
article  nor  myself.'  (p.  13.) 

It  lies  therefore  upon  Mr.  Hill,  to  answer  Mr.  Sellon  before  he 
witticizes  upon  me.  Let  him  do  this,  and  he  talks  to  the  purpose  : 
otherwise  all  the  pretty,  lively  things  he  says  about  Dr.  Baroe,  Bishop 
Wilkins,  Dr.  Clark,  and  George  Bell,  are  utterly  thrown  away. 

As  to  George  Bell,  Mr.  Richard  says,  M.  M d  "justly  cen- 
sures the  enthusiasm  and  credulity  of  Mr.  John,  in  paying  so  muck 
attention  to  Bell's  ridiculous  reveries  ;  in  calling  him  a  sensible  man, 
and  entreating  him  to  continue  in  his  society,  on  account  of  the  great 
good  he  did.  However,  Bell  refused  to  remain  in  connexion  with 
him,  because  of  his  double  dealings  and  unfaithful  proceedings :  for 
he  sometimes  was  full  of  Bell's  praises ;  at  other  times  he  would  warn 
the  people  against  him.  He  also  gives  a  particular  narration  of 
what  he  rightly  calls  the  comet-enthusiasm.  Mr.  John  preached  more 
than  ten  times  about  the  comet  which  he  supposed  was  to  appear  in 
1 758,  to  burn  up  all  the  produce  of  the  earth,  and  lastly  to  execute 
its  grand  commission  on  the  globe  itself,  causing  the  stars  to  fall  from 
heaven."  (p.  37.) 

What  a  heap  of  dirt  is  here  raked  together !  I  must  not  let  it 
pass  quite  unnoticed.  1.  He  "  justly  censures  the  enf^Msiasm  and 
credulity  of  Mr.  W,  in  paying  so  much  attention  to  Bell's  ridiculous 
reveries."  Nay,  so  very  little,  that  I  checked  them  strongly,  as 
soon  as  ever  they  came  to  my  knowledge :  particularly  his  whim 
about  the  end  of  the  world,  which  I  earnestly  opposed  both  in  private 
and  public.  2.  "  Bragging  of  the  many  miracidous  cures  he  had 
wrought."  I  bragged  of',  that  is,  simply  related  the  case  of  Mary 
Special,  and  no  other :  in  the  close  of  which  I  said,  '  here  are 
three  plain  facts,  she  was  ill ;  she  is  well ;  she  became  so  in  a  mo- 
ment. Which  of  these  can,  with  any  modesty,  be  denied  1'  I  still 
ask  the  same  question.  3.  That  I  ever  called  him  a  sensible  man,  is- 
altogether  false.  A  man  oi  faith  and  love  I  then  kneio  him  to  be  ; 
but  I  never  thought  him  a  man  of  sense.  4.  That  I  entreated  him 
to  continue  in  the  society,  is  likewise  totally  false.  5.  Nor  did  I  ever 
tell  him  on  that  or  any  other  occasion,  of  "the  great  good"  he  did. 
I  know,  he  was  an  instrument  in  God's  hand,  of  convincing  and  con- 
verting many  sinners.  But  though  I  speak  this  now  to  all  the  world, 
I  never  spoke  it  to  himself.  6.  Neither  did  he  ever  refuse  what 
never  was  asked,  "  to  remain  in  connexion  with  me."  7.  Least  of 
all  did  he  refuse  it  because  of  my  double  dealings  or  tmfaithful  pro- 
ceedings.  He  never  mentioned  to  me  any  such  thing,  nor  had  he 
^ny  pretence  so  to  do.  8.  Nay,  but  you  "  were  at  some  times  full 
of  Bell's  praises"— Very  moderately  full : — "  At  other  times"— that 


FARRAGO  DOUBLE-DISTILLEP.  515 

4S,  after  he  ran  mad— «« you  warned  the  people  against  him."  1 
warned  them  not  to  regard  his  prophecies ;  particularly  with  regard 
to  the  28th  of  February.  (Journal  X.  p.  99.) 

20.  "  He  also  gives  us  a  particular  narration  of  what  he  rightly 
calls  the  comet-enthusiasm.  Mr.  John  preached  more  than  ten  times 
about  the  comet  he  supposed  was  to  appear  in  1758,  and  to  consume 
the  globe."  This  is  a  foolish  slander,  as  it  is  so  easily  confuted.  A 
tract  was  published  at  that  very  time,  entitled,  "  Serious  Thoughts 
occasioned  by  the  Earthquake  at  Lisbon."  The  thing  which  I  then 
accidentally  mentioned  in  preaching,  (twice  or  thrice  ;  it  may  be, 
four  times,)  is  there  set  down  at  large,  much  more  at  large  than  ever 
I  mentioned  it  in  any  sermon.    The  words  are  these. 

"  Dr.  Halley  fixes  the  return  of  the  comet,  which  appeared  in 
1683,  in  the  year  1758."  (Observe,  Dr.  Halley  does  this,  not  I.) 
On  which  he  adds,  "But  may  the  great,  good  God  avert  such  a 
shock  or  contact  of  such  great  bodies,  moving  with  such  forces 
(which  however  is  by  no  means  impossible,)  lest  this  most  beautiful 
order  of  things  be  entirely  destroyed,  and  reduced  into  its  ancient 
chaos."  (p.  14,  &c.) 

'  But  what  if  God  should  not  avert  this  contact  1  what  would  the 

consequence  be  V — That   consequence    I    afterwards   describe. 

*  Burning  up  all  the  produce  of  the  earth,  and  then  the  globe  itself.* 
But  do  I  affirm  or  suppose,  that  it  actually  will  do  this  1  I  suppose, 
nay,  affirm,  at  the  bottom  of  the  same  page,  the  direct  contrary. 
'  What  security  is  there  against  all  this,  on  the  infidel  hypothesis  1 
But  on  the  Christian  there  is  abundant  security  :  for  the  prophecies 
are  not  yet  fulfilled.' 

21,  So  much  for  the  comet-enthusiasm.  We  return  now  to  the 
point  of  unconditional  election.  "  One  would  imagine,"  says  Mr. 
Hill,  «  by  Mr.  W.'s  quoting  the  31st  Article,  in  contradiction  to  the 
17th,  that  he  thought  the  Reformers  as  inconsistent  as  himself."  I 
did  not  quote  the  31st  in  contradiction  to  the  17th,  but  in  explication 
of  it.  The  latter,  the  31st,  can  bear  but  one  meaning  :  therefore  it 
fixes  the  sense  of  the  former.  "  Nay,  this  article  speaks  nothing  of 
the  extent  of  Christ's  death,  but  of  its  all-sufficiency.^^  (p.  54),  No- 
thing of  the  extent !  Why,  it  speaks  of  nothing  else  :  its  all-suffi- 
ciency is  out  of  the  question.  The  words  are,  «  The  offering  of 
Christ  once  made,  is  that  perfect  redemption,  propitiation,  and  satis- 
faction, for  all  the  sins  of  the  whole  world,  both  original  and  actual." 
It  is  here  affirmed,  the  death  of  Christ  is  a  perfect  satisfaction,  for 
rill  the  sins  oj  the  whole  world.  It  toould  be  sufficient  for  a  thousand 
worlds.     But  of  this  the  article  says  nothing. 

But  "  even  Bishop  Burnet  allows  our  Reformers  to  have  been 
zealous  Calvinists,"  He  does  not  allow  them  all  to  be  such :  he 
knew  and  you  know  the  contrary.  You  cannot  but  know,  that 
Bishop  Ridley,  Hooper,  and  Latimer,  to  name  no  more,  were  firnj 
Universalists. 

22.  But  the  contradictions!  Where  are  the  contradictions'? 
"  Why,  sometimes  you  deny  election :  yet  another  time  you  say. 


516  SOilE   RE»IARKS   ON   MR.    HILl'S 

"  From  all  eternity  with  love 
Unchangeable  thou  hast  me  view'd.'-'  (p.  21  •) 

I  answered,  '  I  believe  this  is  true,  on  the  supposition  of  faith  fore^ 
seen,  not  otherwise." 

Here  is  therefore  no  contradiction,  unless  on  that  supposition, 
which  I  do  not  allow. 

But  sometimes  "  you  deny  the  perseverance  of  the  saints."  Yet 
In  one  place  you  say,  '  I  do  not  deny,  that  those  eminently  styled  the 
elect  shall  persevere.'  I  mean  those  that  are  perfected  in  love.  So  I 
was  inclined  to  think  for  maiiy  years.  But  for  ten  or  twelve  years 
I  have  been  fully  convinced,  that  even  these  may  make  shipwreck  of 
the  faith. 

23.  But  "several  of  Mr.  Hill's  quotations  are  from  Mr.  Charles 
Wesley's  hymns,  for  which  Mr.  John  says,  he  will  not  be  answer- 
Able." 

I  will  now  explain  myself  on  this  head.  1.  Though  there  are 
some  expressions  in  my  brothers  hymns,  which  I  do  not  use,  as 
being  very  liable  to  be  misconstrued  :  yet  I  am  fully  satisfied,  that  in 
the  whole  tenor  of  them,  they  thoroughly  agree  with  mine,  and  with 
the  Bible:  2.  That  there  is  no  jot  of  Calvinism  therein;  that  not 
one  hymn,  not  one  verse  of  a  hynni,  maintains  either  unconditional 
election,  or  infallible  perseverance.  Therefore  I  can  readily  answer 
Mr.  H.'s  question,  "  How  can  Mr.  W.  answer  it  to  his  own  con- 
science, to  write  prefaces  and  recommendations  to  hymns  which  he 
does  not  believe  ?"  There  is  the  mistake.  I  do  believe  them : 
although  still  I  will  not  be  answerable  for  every  expression  which  may 
occur  therein.  But  as  to  those  expressions  which  you  quote,  in 
proof  of  final  perseverance,  they  prove  thus  much,  and  no  more,  that 
the  persons  who  use  them  have  at  that  time  the  full  assurance  of 
hope.  Hitherto  then  Mr.  Hill  has  brought  no  proof  that  I  contradict 
myself. 
^  HI. 

Of  Imputed  Righteousness,  (p.  23.) 
24.  "  Blessed  be  God,  we  are  not  among  those  who  are  so  dark 
in  their  conceptions  and  expressions.  We  no  more  deny,  (says  Mr. 
W.)  the  phrase  of  imputed  I'ighteousness,  than  the  thing.^^  It  is  true  : 
for  I  continually  aifirm.  To  them  that  believe,  faith  is  imputed  for 
righteousness.  And  I  do  not  contradict  this,  in  still  denying  that 
phrase,  the  imputed  righteousness  of  Christ,  to  be  in  the  Bible  ;  or  in 
Beseeching  both  Mr.  Hervey  and  you,  '  not  to  dispute  for  that  par- 
ticular phrase.^ 

But  '<  since  Mr.  W.  blesses  God  for  enlightening  liim  to  receive 
the  doctrine,  and  to  adopt  the  phrase  of  imputed  righteousness ;  how 
came  be  to  think  that  clear  conceptions  of  the  doctrine  wei'e  so  un-- 
necessary,  and  the  phrase  itself  so  useless,  after  having  so  deeply 
lamented  the  dark  conceptions  of  those  who  rejected  the  term  and  the 
thing  ?" 

It  was  neither  this  term,  The  imputed  righteousness  ofChnst,  nor  Ihe 
thing,  which  Antinomicus  aaean  thereby,  the  rejection  of  which  I  sup^- 


FARRAGO  DOITBLE-DISTILLED.  517 

posed  to  argue  any  darkness  of  conception.  Biit  those  I  think  dark 
in  their  conceptions,  who  reject  either  the  Scripture-jyJir use,  faith  m- 
putedjor  righteousness,  or  the  thing  it  means. 

25.  However,  to  prove  his  point,  Mr.  Hill  goes  on  : 


^*  This  doctrine  (of  the  imputed 
righteousness  of  Christ)  I  have 
constantly  believed  and  taught 
for  near  eight  and  twenty  years." 


The  use  of  the  term  (the  im- 
puted righteousness  of  Christ)  is 
not  scriptural,  it  is  not  neces- 
sary ;  it  has  done  immense  hurt. 


"  It  has  done  immense  hurt,  says  Mr.  W,  but  here  is  no  contra- 
diction. Whether  there  be  or  not,  there  is  a  plain  concession  from 
Mr.  W.  himself,  that  he  has  been  preaching  a  doctrine  for  eight  and 
twenty  years  together,  ichich  has  done  immense  hurt." 

Let  this  (one  instance  out  of  a  hundred)  be  a  specimen  of  Mr. 
Hill's  fairness!  The  whole  strength  of  the  argument  depends  on  the 
artful  jumbling  of  two  sentences  together,  and  inserting  two  or  three 
little  words  into  the  latter  of  them. 

My  words  are,  'We  no  more  deny  the  phrase  (of  imputed  right- 
eousness) than  the  thing.'  (p.  14.) 

'  This  doctrine  I  have  believed  and  taught  for  near  eight  and  twenty 
years.'  (p.  15.) 

These  distinct  sentences  Mr.  Hill  is  pleased  to  thrust  together 
into  one,  and  to  mend  thus  ; 

"  This  doctrine  (of  the  imputed  righteousness  of  Christ)  \  have 
constantly  believed  and  taught  for  near  eight  and  twenty  years." 

And  here,  says  Mr.  H.  is  a  "  plain  concession  from  Mr.  W.  him- 
self, that  he  has  been  preaching  a  doctrine  for  twenty-eight  years  to- 
gether, which  has  done  immense  hurt." 

No,  the  doctrine  which  I  believe  has  done  immense  hurt,  is  that  of 
the  imputed  righteousness  of  Christ  in  the  Antinomian  sense.  The 
doctrine  which  I  have  constantly  held  and  preached  is,  that  faith  is-, 
imputed  for  righteousness. 

And  when  I  have  either  in  that  sermon  or  elsewhere  said,  that 
the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  imputed  to  every  believer,  I  mean,  every  be- 
liever is  justified  for  the  sake  of  what  Christ  has  done  and  suffered. 
Yet  still  I  think,  "  There  is  no  use  in  contending  for  that  particular 
plirase."  And  I  say  still,  '  I  dare  not  insist  upon  it,  because  1  can- 
not find  it  in  the  Bible.' 

To  contradict  this,  Mr.  H.  cites  these  words,  *This  is  fully  con- 
sistent with  our  being  justified,  through  the  imputation  of  Christ's 
)ighteousness.'  Mr.  W.'s  notes  on  Rom.  iv.  9.  Mr.  H.  adds, 
"  These  two  taken  together,  produce  the  following  conclusion,  that 
it  is  perfectly  consistent  to  say,  that  we  are  justified  by  that,  which  can- 
not be  found  in  the  Bible."  (p.  24.) 

That  note  runs  thus  :  'Faith  was  imputed  to  Ahraham  for  righteous- 
ness. This  is  fully  consistent  with  our  being  justified  through  the 
imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ :  that  is,  our  being  pardon- 
ed and  accepted  of  God,  for  the  sake  of  what  Christ  has  done  and 
suffered.  For  though  this,  and  this  alone,  be  the  meritorious  cause 
Vol.  9.— W  w 


518  SOME   REMARKS   ON   MR.    HlLL^g 

of  our  acceptance  with  God,  yet  faith  may  be  said  to  be  imputed  lo  m 
for  righteousness,  as  it  is  the  sole  condition  of  our  acceptance.' 

Now  is  there  any  shadow  of  contradiction  in  this?  Or  of  our  being 
justified  by  that  which  cannot  be  found  in  the  Bible? 

26.  "  Mr.  W.  frequently  puts  the  expression  imputed  righteous- 
ness, in  the  mouth  of  a  whole  congregation."  Yet  he  says,  '  I  dare 
not  require  any  to  use  it.'  Hence  Mr.  Hill  deduces  these  two  con- 
clusions : 

1.  "  That  Mr.  W.  gives  out  such  doctrines,  as  he  dares  not  require 
any  others  to  believe.''^  (p.  25.) 

By  what  logic  is  this  deduced  1  We  are  not  speaking  of  doctrines 
at  all,  but  simply  of  a  particular  expression.  And  that  expression 
is  not,  imputed  righteousness  ;  but  the  imputed  righteousness  of  Christ. 

2.  "  That  a  whole  congregation  may  have  words  in  their  mouths, 
and  yet  be  all  silent." 

Well  inferred  again  !  But  did  I  say,  "  A  whole  congregation  had 
those  words  in  their  mouths  V  I  did  not  either  say  or  suppose  it ;  any 
more  than  that  they  were  all  silent. 

"  Will  Mr,  W.  be  ingenuous  enough  to  tell  me,  Whether  he  did 
not  write  this,  when  he  was  last  in  a  certain  country,  which  abounds 
with  crassaingenia?'^  I  will.  I  did  not  write  this  in  the  fogs  of  Ire- 
land, but  in  the  clear  air  of  Yorkshire. 

27.  The^two  next  propositions  Mr.  Hill  quotes,  are,  'They  to  whom 
the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  imputed,'  (1  mean,  who  truly  believe,) 
"  are  made  righteous  by  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  are  renewed  in  the  image 
of  God,  in  righteousness  and  true  holiness.' 

'  The  nice,  metaphysical  doctrine  of  imputed  righteousness,'  (if  it 
is  not  carefully  guarded,)  <  leads  not  to  repentance,  but  to  licen- 
tiousness.    I  have  known  a  thousand  instances  of  this.'  . 

And  where  is  the  contradiction  between  these  propositions  ?  "  It  is 
just  this,"  says  Mr.  Hill,  "  That  the  doctrine  of  imputed  righteous- 
ness makes  those  who  believe  it  both  holy  and  unholy."  (p.  26.) 

Unfold  the  propositions  a  little  more,  and  then  let  any  man  judge. 

The  first  means  just  this.  They  whom  God  justifies,  for  the  sake  of 
what  Christ  has  done  and  suffered,  (whether  they  ever  heard  of  that 
phrase,  imputing  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  or  not,)  are  sanctified 
by  his  Spirit ;  are  renewed  in  the  image  of  God,  in  righteousness 
and  true  holiness. 

The  second  means,  I  have  known  very  many,  who  so  rested  in 
the  doctrine  of  the  righteousness  of  Cln-ist  imputed  to  them,  that  they 
were  quite  satisfied  without  any  holiness  at  all. 

Now  where  is  the  contradiction  1 

But  my  inserting  in  my  own  sentence  those  ex})lanatory  words,  <  I 
mean,  who  truly  believe,'  Mr.  H.  calls  an  interpolation,  and  supposes 
I  "  mean  to  make  a  distinction  between  faith  in  Christ,  and  faith  in 
the  righteousness  of  Christ."  I  mean  just  what  I  have  said  again 
and  again,  particularly  in  the  note  above  cited.  And  this  is  the 
very  thing  which  John  Goqdwin  means,  as  he  declares  over  and  over. 

jyir.  W.  "  winds  up  this  poilit  o(  imputed  righteoiimess  with  a  reso- 


f-ARRAGO  DOUBIE-DISTILLEU.  51^ 

lution  which  astonishes  me,  That  <  he  will  never  more  use  the  phrase 
the  imputed  righteousness  of  Christ,  unless  it  occur  to  him  in  a  hymn, 
or  steal  upon  him  unawares.'"  This  is  my  resolution.  I  repeat  once 
more  what  I  said  in  the  Remarks,  '  The  thing,  that  we  are  justified 
merely  for  the  sake  of  what  Christ  has  do7ie  and  suffered,  T  have  con- 
stantly and  earnestly  maintained,  above  four  and  thirty  years.  And  I 
have  frequently  used  the  phrase,  hoping  thereby  to  please  others,  for 
their  good  to  edification.  But  it  has  had  a  contrary  effect,  since  so 
many  improve  it  into  an  objection.  Therefore  I  will  use  it  no  more,' 
(I  mean  the  phrase  Imputed  Righteousness :  that  phrase,  the  Imputed 
Righteousness  of  Christ,  I  never  did  use.)  'I  will  endeavour  to  use 
only  such  phrases  as  are  strictly  scriptural.  And  I  will  advise  all  my 
brethren,  all  who  are  in  connexion  with  me  throughout  the  three 
kingdoms,  to  lay  aside  that  ambiguous,  unscriptural  phrase,'  {the  im- 
puted righteousness  of  Christ,)  '  which  is  so  liable  to  be  misinterpret- 
ed, and  speak  in  all  instances,  this  in  particular,  as  theoracles  of  God,^ 

IV. 
Of  a  Tioo-fold  Jastification.  (p.  37.) 
My  words  cited  as  contradicting  this,  run  thus : — 

28.  '  In  the  afternoon  I  was  informed,  how  many  wise  and  learn- 
ed men,  who  cannot  in  terms  deny  it,  (because  our  articles  and  homi- 
lies are  not  yet  repealed)  explain  justification  by  faith,  (p.  38.) 
They  say  justification  is  two-fold,  the  first  in  this  life,  the  second  at 
the  last  day,  &c. ^In  opposition  to  this,  I  maintain.  That  the  jus- 
tification spoken  of  by  St.  Paul  to  the  Romans,  and  in  our  articles,  is 
not  two-fold  :  it  is  one  and  no  more.'  True.  And  where  do  I  con- 
tradict this  7  Where  do  I  say,  the  justification  spoken  of  by  St.  Paul 
to  the  Romans  and  in  our  articles,  is  any  more  than  one  1  The  question 
between  them  and  me  concerned  this  justification,  and  this  only, 
which  I  afiirmed  to  be  but  one.  They  averred,  but  there  is  a  second 
justification  at  the  last  day  :  therefore  justification  is  not  one  only. 
Without  entering  into  that  question  I  replied,  '  The  justification 
whereof  St.  Paul  and  our  Articles  speak,  is  one  only."  And  so  I  say 
still.  And  yet  I  do  not  deny,  that  there  is  another  justification  (of 
which  our  Lord  speaks)  at  the  last  day, 

I  do  not  therefore  condemn  the  distinction  of  a  two-fold  justifica- 
tion, in  saying,  that  spoken  of  in  our  Articles  is  but  one.  And  this  is 
the  thing  which  I  afiirmed,  "  in  flat  opposition  to  those  men." 

29.  But  "  how  is  it  possible  to  encounter  such  a  man  as  this,  with- 
out watching  him  through  every  line  ]  And  therefore  I  wish  my 
readers  would  closely  compare  the  Remarks  with  the  Review  itself:" 
(I  desire  no  more.  Whoever  does  this,  will  easily  discern  on  which 
side  the  truth  lies :)  "  As  it  is  impracticable  to  point  out  half  the 
little  arts  of  this  kind  which  Mr.  W,  has  stooped  to."  That  is,  in 
civil  terms,  "Sir,  you  are  a  knave."  Sir,  I  crave  your  mercy.  I 
stoop  to  no  art,  but  that  of  plain  sound  reasoning.  By  this  art,  and 
by  this  alone,  I  am  able  to  untwist  truth  from  falsehood,  how  skilfully 
soever  they  are  woven  together.  I  dare  use  no  other  ;  for  (whether 
you  know  it  or  not)  I  fear  God.  And  by  his  grace,  in  simplicity  and 
godly  sincerity,  I  have  my  conversation  in  the  world. 


o20  SOME    REMARKS    ON    MR.    BILLY'S 

"  But  how  agrees  this  with  what  Mr,  W.  tells  us,  that  he  has  nere  ' 
contradicted  himself  with  regard  to  justification,  since  the  year  1738?" 
(p.  39.)  Perfectly  well.  «  How  long  has  he  held,  that  justification 
is  four-fold  ?^^  I  have  said  nothing  about  it  yet.  "And  how  will  he 
reconcile  this  with  its  being  two-fold,  and  with  his  preceding  affirma- 
tion, that  it  is  07ie  and  no  more .?"  When  time  is,  this  mystery  too 
may  be  cleared  up. 

V. 
Of  a  Justified  State,  (p.  34.) 

30.  Mr.  W.  says,  "  The  state  oi  a  justified  person  is  inexpressibly 
great  and  glorious." 

Yet  he  asks  elsewhere,  "  Does  not  talking  of  a  justified  or  sancti- 
fied state,  tend  to  mislead  men?'  He  answers,  'It frequently  doer^ 
mislead  men,'  (namely,  when  it  is  spoken  of  in  an  unguarded  manner,) 
•  But  where  is  the  contradiction  V  "  Whatever  may  be  the  contra- 
diction, this  is  clearly  the  conclusion,  that  Mr.  W.  by  his  own  confes- 
sion, is  a  misleader  of  men." 

it  is  not  quite  clear  yet.  You  have  first  to  prove,  that  I  use  the 
phrase  <  in  an  unguarded  manner.^  1  confess,  when  it  is  so  used,  it 
tends  to  mislead  men  ;  but  1  do  not  confess,  that  I  use  it  so. 

VI. 
^^re  Works  a  Condition  of  Justification. 

31.  "  Mr.  W.  says,  '  No  good  works  can  be  previous  to  justifica- 
tion.' And  yet  in  the  same  page  he  asserts,  '  Whoever  desires  to  find 
favour  with  God,  should  cease  from  evil,  and  learn  to  do  well.'  " 

1  answered,  <  Does  not  the  Bible  say  so  1  Who  can  deny  it  1  Nay, 
but  Mr.  W.  asks.  If  this  be  not  in  order  to  find  favour,  what  does  he 
do  them  for  ?  And  I  ask  it  again.  Let  Mr.  Hill,  or  any  one  eise, 
give  me  an  answer.  So  if  there  is  any  contradiction  here,  it  is  not  I 
contradict  myself,  but  Isaiah  and  our  Lord  that  contradict  St.  Paul.' 
Remarks,  p.  22.) 

Mr.  Hill  replies,  "  Then  a  man  may  do  works  in  order  to  find 
favour,  and  yet  such  works  cannot  be  called  good.'''  You  may  call 
them  so,  if  you  please  :  but  be  not  angry  with  me,  if  I  do  not.  I  still 
believe,  no  good  works  can  be  done  before  justification.  Yet  I  be- 
lieve (and  that  without  the  least  self-contradiction,)  that  final  sal- 
vation, is  '  by  works  as  a  condition.'  And  let  any  one  read  over  the 
twenty-fifth  chapter  of  St.  Matthew,  and  deny  it  if  he  can. 

VI  f. 

Is  Justification  by  Faith  Articulus  stantis  vel  cadentis 

ecclesice .?  (p.  15.) 

32.  In  the  beginning  of  the  year  1738,  I  believed  it  was  so.  Soon 
after,  1  found  reason  to  doubt.  Since  that  time  I  have  not  varied. 
"  Nay,  but  in  the  year  1763,  you  say,  '  This  is  the  name  whereby  he 
shall  be  called.  The  Lord  our  Righteousness.  A  truth  this,  of  v/hich 
may  be  affirmed,  (what  Luther  affirms  of  a  truth  nearly  connected 
with  it,  justification  by  faith,)  it  is  Jirticulus  stantis  vel  cadentis  ecclesias. 
ft  is  certainly  the  pillar  and  ground  of  that  faith  of  which  alone 
cometh  salvation.'  '* 


fARRAGO  DOUBLE-DISTILLED.  S21 

I  answered,  *  It  is  certain,  here  is  a  seeming  contradiction ;  but  it 
is  not  a  real  one  :  for  these  two  opposite  propositions  do  not  speak  of 
the  same  thing.  The  latter  s^ie^ks  of  justification  by  faith  :  the  former, 
of  trusting  in  the  righteousness  or  merits  of  Christ.  (Justification 
by  faith  is  only  mentioned  incidentally  in  a  parenthesis.)  Now 
although  Mr.  Law  denied  justification  by  faith,  he  might  trust  in  the 
merits  of  Christ.  It  is  this,  and  this  only  that  I  affirm,  (whatever  Lu- 
ther does,)  to  be  '  Jlrtieulus  stantis  vel  cadentis  ecclesiee.^  (Rem.  p.  24.) 

But  Mr.  Hill  thinks  "  Justification  by  faith,  and  by  trusting  in  the 
merits  of  Christ,  are  all  one."  (p.  16.)  Be  they  or  not,  !  still  think, 
'  Some  may  doubt  of  justification  by  faith,  and  yet  not  perish  ever- 
lastingly.' Does  Mr.  Hill  judge,  that  such  an  one  cannot  be  saved  ? 
That  all  Mystics,  (as  well  as  M'    ^.aw,)  go  to  hell  ? 

VIIL 
Soth  Jldam''s  Sin  and  Chi  :..-iv's  R-  hteousness  are  imputed. 
They  are ;  the  question  is  only,  in  what  sense  1 
IX. 
Of  MERIT,    (p.  35.) 

33.  In  the  Minutes  1  say, '  We  are  rewarded  according  to  our  ivorks,  ^ 
yea,  because  of  our  works.  (Gen.  xxii.   16,  17.)     How  differs  this 
from /or  the  sake  o/our  works  1  And  how  differs  this  from  secundum 
merita  operum,  or  as  our  works  deserve  ?  Can  you  split  this  hair  ?  I 
doubt  1  cannot.'     I  say  so  still.     Let  Mr.  Hill,  if  he  can. 

'  And  yet  I  still  maintain,'  (so  I  added  in  the  Remarks  :  so  i  firmly 
believe)  '  there  is  no  vierit,  taking  the  word  strictly,  but  in  the  Blood 
of  Christ :  that  salvation  is  not  by  the  merit  of  works  :  and  that  there 
is  nothing  we  are,  or  have,  or  dO,  which  can,  strictly  speaking,  deserve 
the  least  thing  at  God's  hand.' 

'And  all  this  is  no  more  than  to  say,  take  the  word  merir  in  a 
strict  sense,  and  1  utterly  renounce  it :  take  it  in  a  looser  sense,  and 
though  1  never  use  it,  ( !  mean,  I  never  ascribe  it  to  any  man)  yet  1 
do  not  condemn  it.  Therefore  with  regard  to  the  word  merit,  I  do 
not  contradict  myself  at  all.' 

"  You  never  use  the  word  !"  says  Mr.  Hill.  "  What  have  we  then 
been  disputing  about]"  (p.  36.)  Why  about  a  straw:  namely.  Whe- 
ther there  be  a  sense  in  which  others  may  use  that  word  without 
blame. 

But  can  Mr.  Hill,  or  any  one  living,  suppose  me  to  mean,  I  do  not 
use  the  word  in  the  present  question  ? 

What  Mr.  Hill  adds,  is  a  mere  play  upon  words.  "  Does  Mr.  W. 
by  this  looser  merit,  mean  a  merit  that  does  not  "  merit  ?"  Yes.  By 
terming  a  work  meritorious  in  this  improper  sense,  I  dp  not  mean,  that 
it  merits  or  deserves  a  reward  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word.  In- 
stances of  the  word  taken  in  this  improper  sense,  occur  all  over  the 
Bible. 

"  This  is  shamefully  evasive."  No  more  than  it  is  Greek.  It  is  a 
plain,  rational,  solid  distinction  :  and  it  holds  with  regard  to  number- 
less words  in  all  languages,  which  may  be  taken  cither  in  a  proper  ov 
improper  sense. 

W  w  2 


522  SOME    RExMAUKS    ON    MR.    HILl's 

When  I  say,  '  I  do  not  grant,  that  works  are  meritorious^  even 
when  accompanied  by  faith,'  I  take  that  word  in  a  proper  sense.  But 
others  take  it  in  an  improper,  as  nearly  equivalent  with  rewardable. 
Here  tlierefore  I  no  more  contradict  Mr.  Fletcher,  than  I  do  myself. 
Least  of  all  do  I  plead,  as  Mr.  Hill  roundly  affirms,  "  for  justifica- 
tion by  the  merit  of  my  own  good  works."  (p.  52.) 

Of  MARRMGE.  (p.  39.) 

34.  "  Mr.  W.  says,  his  thoughts  on  a  single  life  are  just  the  same 
they  have  been  these  thirty  years."  (I  mean  with  regard  to  the  ad- 
vantages which  attend  that  state  in  general.)  "Why  then  did  he 
marry  ?"  I  answered  short,  '  For  reasons  best  known  to  himself.' 
As  much  as  to  say,  I  judge  it  extremely  impertinent,  for  any  but  a 
superior  to  ask  me  the  question.  So  the  harmless  raillery  which  Mr. 
Hill  pleases  himself  with  upon  the  occasion,  may  stand  just  as  it  is.  " 

XL 
Concerning  DRESS,   (p.  40.) 

35.  "  Mr.  W.  advises  his  followers  to  wear  nothing  of  a  glaring 
colour,  nothing  made  in  the  height  of  the  fashion,  in  order  to  increase 
their  reward,  and  brighten  their  crown  in  heaven." 

"  Nevertheless  in  his  letter  to  a  Quaker,  he  says,  '  To  make  it  a 
point  of  conscience,  to  differ  from  others,  as  to  the  shape  and  colour 
of  their  apparel,  is  mere  superstition.^  " 

"  Yet  he  says,  '  So  I  advise ;  but  I  do  not  make  it  a  point  of  con- 
science.^ It  follows,  that  we  are  to  increase  our  reward,  and  brighten 
our  crown  in  heaven,  by  doing  that  which  is  mere  superstition,  and 
without  acting  from  a  point  of  conscience." 

I  shall  say  more  on  this  head  than  I  otherwise  would,  in  order  to 
show  every  impartial  reader,  by  one  instance  in  a  thousand,  the 
manner  wherein  Mr.  H.  continually  distorts  and  murders  my  words. 

hi  my  advice  to  the  people  called  Methodists,*  I  say,  '  I  would 
not  advise  you  to  imitate  the  people  called  Quakers,  in  those  particu- 
larities of  dress,  which  can  answer  no  end,  but  to  distinguish  you 
from  all  other  people.  But  I  advise  you  to  imitate  them  in  plain- 
ness :  L  Let  your  apparel  be  cheap,  not  expens^ive  :  2.  Let  it  be 
grave,  not  gay  or  showy  ;  not  in  the  point  of  the  fashion.' 

'  Would  you  have  a  farther  rule  1  Then  take  one  you  may  always 
carry  in  your  bosom.  Do  every  thing  with  a  single  eye,  and  this  will 
direct  you  in  every  circumstance.  Let  a  single  intention  to  please 
God  prescribe,  both  what  clothing  you  shall  buy,  and  the  manner 
wherein  it  shall  be  made,  and  how  you  shall  put  on  and  wear  it.  Li 
other  words,  let  all  you  do  in  this  respect,  be  so  done,  that  you  may 
offer  it  to  God,  a  sacrifice  acceptable  through  Jesus  Christ :  so  that 
consequently  it  may  increase  your  reward,  and  brighten  your  crown 
in  heaven.^ 

Now  is  there  any  thing  ridiculous  in  all  this  1  1  would  appeal 
even  to  a  rational  deist,  whether  it  be  not,  upon  the  Christian  scheme, 
all  agreeable  to  the  highest  reason? 

*  Vol.  VI.  p.  153. 


FARRAGO  DOUBLE-DISTILLED.  523 

36.  «'  But  it  is  inconsistent  with  what  you  said  elsewhere,  to  make 
it  a  point  of  conscience,  to  differ  from  others,  as  the  Quakers  do,  in 
the  shape  or  colour  of  their  apparel,  is  mere  superstition." 

Not  inconsistent  at  all.  It  is  mere  superstition  to  make  wearing 
a  broad-brimmed  hat,  or  a  coat  with  four  buttons,  (the  very  thing  I 
referred  to  in  the  preceding  page, )  a  point  of  conscience,  that  is,  a 
thing  necessary  to  salvation. 

Why  then,  says  Mr.  Hill,  "  we  are  to  increase  our  reward,  and 
brighten  our  crown  in  heaven,  by  doing  what  is  mere  superstition^  and 
without  acting  from  a  point  oj  conscience  .'" 

Was  ever  such  twisting  of  words  1  Has  he  not  great  reason  to 
cry  out,  "  O  rare  Logica  Wesleiensis  !  Qui  bene  distinguit,  bene 
docet !"  I  bless  God,  I  can  distinguish  reason  from  sophistry ; 
unkind,  unjust,  ungenteel  sophistry,  used  purely  for  this  good  end, 
to  asperse,  to  blacken  a  fellow  Christian — because  he  is  not  a  Cal- 
vinist ! 

No,  Sir :  What  I  call  superstition,  and  no  point  of  conscience,  is 
wearing  a  Quaker  hat  or  coat;  which  is  widely  different  from  the 
plainness  of  dress  that  1  recommend  to  the  people  called  Methodists. 
My  logic  therefore  stands  unimpeached  ;  1  wish  your  candour  did  so 
too.  I  would  engage  to  answer  every  objection  of  Mr.  Hill's,  as 
fairly  and  fully  as  this.  But  I  cannot  spare^so  much  time,  I  am 
called  to  other  employment.  And  1  should  really  think,  Mr.  Hill 
might  spend  his  time  better,  than  in  throwing  dirt  at  his  quiet  neigh- 
bours. 

XH. 
Of  TEA.  (p.  41.) 

37.  "  Mr.  W.  published  a  tract  against  driiiking  tea,  and  told  the 
tea-drinkers,  he  would  set  them  an  example  in  that  piece  of  self- 
denial." 

'  I  did  set  them  an  example  for  twelve  years.  Then  at  the  close 
of  a  consumption,  by  Dr.  Fothergill's  direction,  I  used  it  again.' 

"  Why  then  did  Mr.  W.  republish  this  tract,  making  the  world 
Ijelieve,  it  brought  a  paralytic  disorder  upon  him  ]"  Before  I  was 
twenty  years  old,  it  made  my  hand  shake,  so  that  I  could  hardly 
Avrite.  "  Is  it  not  strange  then,  that  Dr.  Fothergill  should  advise 
Mr.  W.  to  use  what  had  before  thrown  him  into  the  palsy  ?"  I  did 
not  say  so  :  I  never  had  the  palsy  yet ;  though  my  hand  shook,  which 
is  a  paralytic  disorder.  But  be  it  strange  or  not,  so  Dr.  F.  advised  ; 
if  you  believe  not  me,  you  may  inquire  of  himself.  The  low 
wit  that  follows,  I  do  not  meddle  with  :  I  leave  it  with  the  gentle 
leader. 

XIII. 
Of  BAPTISM,  (p.  42.) 

38.  Mr.  W.  says,  '  As  there  is  no  clear  proof  for  dipping  in  Scrip- 
ture, so  there  is  very  probable  proof  to  the  contrary.' 

"  Why  then  did  you  at  Savannah  baptize  all  children  by  immer- 
sion, unless  the  parents  certified  that  they  were  weak  1"  I  answered, 
*  Not  because  I  had  any  scruple,  but  in  obedience  to  the  rubric' 


1524  SOME  REMARKS  ON  MR.   HILl's 

Mr.  Hill,  according  to  custom,  repeats  the  objection,  without 
taking  the  least  notice  of  the  answer. 

As  to  the  story  of  half  drowning  Mrs.  L.  S.,  let  her  aver  it  to  my 
face,  and  I  shall  say  more.  Only  observe,  Mr.  Toplady,  is  not 
"my  friend."  He  is  all  your  own;  your  friend,  ally,  and  fellow- 
soldier  : 


■ Ut  non 

Compositi  melius  cum  Bytho  Bacchius ! 

You  are  in  truth.  Duo  fulmina  belli.  It  is  not  strange,  if  their  thuD'- 
der  should  quite  drown  the  sound  of  my  "  poor  pop-guns." 

39.  "  But  what  surpasses  every  thing  else  is,  that  Mr.  W.  cannot 
even  speak  of  his  contradictions,  without  contradicting  himself.  For 
he  absolutely  denies,  not  only  that  he  ever  was  unsettled  in  his  pi'in- 
ciples,  but  that  he  was  ever  accused  of  being  so,  either  by  friends  or 
foes.^^  (p.  38,  39. 1  Either  by  friends  or  foes  !  I  will  rest  the  whole 
cause  upon  this.  If  this  be  true,  I  am  out  of  my  wits.  If  it  be  false, 
what  is  Mr.  Hill  ?  An  honest,  upright,  sensible  man  ;  but  a  little 
too  warm,  and  therefore  not  seeing  so  clearly  in  this  as  in  other 
things. 

My  words  are,  '  My  friends  have  oftener  accused  me  of  being  too 
stiff  in  my  opinions,  than  too  flexible.  My  enemies  have  accused 
me  of  both,  and  of  every  thing  besides."  (Rem.  p.  39.)  Is  thia 
"  denying  that  ever  I  was  accused  of  inconsistency  either  byjriends 
or  foes .?" 

I  do  still  deny,  that  Mr.  Delamotte  spoke  to  me,  "  of  mj'  waver- 
ing, unsettled  disposition."  (p.  43.)  But  "he  spoke  to  you,"  says 
Mr.  Hill,  ^' of  something  else  .'"     It  is  very  likely  he  might. 

40.  Mr.  W.  is  equally  self-inconsistent  "  with  regard  to  the  Mys- 
tics. These  he  tells  us  he  had  once  in  great  veneration^  (p.  14.)  (5 
had  two  or  three  and  forty  years  ago,)  "  as  the  best  explainers  of  the 
gospel  of  Christ.  Yet  afterwards  he  declares  he  looks  upon  them  as 
one  great  Antichrist."  I  did  look  upon  them  as  such  thirty  years 
ago.  But  ia  my  Remarks  I  say,  '  I  retract  this.  It  is  far  too 
strong.'  But  observe,  I  never  contradicted  it  till  now.  But  how 
floes  this  agree  with  Mr.  W.'s  saying,  "  I  never  was  in  the  way  of 
mysticism  at  all  ?' 

Perfectly  well :  I  admired  the  mystic  writers.  But  I  never  was  in 
their  way ;  leaving  off  the  outward  means. 

"  But  why  did  Mr.  W.  let  the  expression  stand,  Solomon  is  the 
chief  of  the  mystics  .?"     Perhaps  because   I  thought  it  a  harmless 
<me,  and  capable  of  a  good  meaning.     But  I  observe  again  :   Mr 
11.  takes  it  for  granted,  that  I  have  the  correction  of  Mr.  Fletcher's 
books.     This  is  a  mistake  ;  of  some  I  have  ;  of  others  I  have  not. 

41.  Now  comes  the  capital  instance  of  self-inconsistency.     "  In 

1770,  Mr.  W.  esteems  the  Minutes  the  standard  of  orthodoxy.     In 

1771,  he  signs  a"  paper,  owning  them  to  be  unguarded.  In  1 772,  he 
tells  us,  he  does  not  know  but  it  would  have  been  better,  not 
to  have  signed  that  paper  at  all !''  (p.  13.)     Suppose  all  tliis  true. 


FARRAGO  DOUBLE-DISTILLED,  625 

what  will  it  prove  1  Only  that  I  made  a  concession  which  was  made 
an  ill  use  of. 

But  "Mr.  F.'s  defence  makes  poor  Mr.  W  appear  more  and 
more  inconsistent.  Mr.  W.  declares  the  Minutes  to  be  unguarded ;" 
(that  is  not  enough  guarded  against  cavillers:)  "Mr.  F.  defends 
them,  and  strives  to  reconcile  them  with  the  Declaration.  But  then 
comes  Mr.  W,  and  tells  us,  he  does  not  know,  but  it  had  been  bet- 
ter not  to  have  signed  it  at  all."  And  what  then  1  Why,  "  hereby 
he  intimates,  that  he  has  fixed  a  different  sense  upon  the  Minutey 
from  that  which  they  originally  bore."  No  such  thing ;  he  intimates 
this  and  no  more,  that  by  that  well-intended  concession,  he  had 
given  occasion  to  those  who  sought  occasion  of  offence  against  him. 
So  all  this  laboured  charge  vanishes  into  air,  and  no  more  proves  in- 
consistency than  high-treason. 

•  42.  We  come  now  to  the  main  point.  Perfection^  the  objections 
to  which  spread  almost  throughout  the  book.  But  fhe  question  \8 
not,  Whether  the  doctrine  be  true  or  false  1  But  whether  I  contra- 
dict myself  concerning  it  1 

As  to  what  occurs  in  the  fourth  and  fifth  pages  it  may,  therefore, 
suffice  to  say,  1  do  believe  (as  you  observe)  that  real  Christians, 
(meaning  those  that  are  peifected  in  love,)  are  freed  from  evil  or 
sinful  thoughts.     And  where  do  I  contradict  this  1 

P.  10,  "You  say,  I  Cannot  prove  the  facts  alleged  against 
some  professors  of  perfection.  Indeed  I  can."  If  you  could,  that 
would  not  prove  that  I  contradict  myself  on  this  head. 

"  But  one  at  W r  writes,  « I  send  you  an  account  of  two  or 

three  shocking  instances  of  bad  behaviour  among  the  professors  of 
perfection  here."  Perhaps  so.  But  will  that  prove  my  inconsis- 
tency'? 

43.  Awhile  since  Mr.  Ma d  related  to  me  the  whole  story  of 

Samuel  Wi n.     I  know  not  that  I  ever  heard  it  before,  but  only 

some  imperfect  fragments  of  it.  The  other  story,  of  "  one  who 
said,  the  Holy  Ghost  visibly  descendeth  on  all  true  converts,"  maybe 
true  for  aught  I  know,  but  I  question  much,  whether  that  madman 
was  a  preacher  1  It  may  likewise  be  true,  that  several  wild  expres- 
sions were  uttered  at  West-street  Chapel.  Yet  1  think,  all  these  put 
together  will  not  prove,  that  I  contradict  myself. 

However,  I  am  glad  to  read,  "  If  I  publish  another  edition  of  thd 
Review,  these  instances  shall  all  be  omitted  :  and  personal  vilifications 
shall  be  left  to  the  sole  pen  of  Mr.  W."  Then  you  will  reduce  your 
Farrago  to  a  page,  and  your  Review  to  a  penny  pamphlet.  But 
still  personal  vilification  will  not  suit  my  pen.  I  have  better  employ- 
ment for  it. 

44.  You  say,  p.  23,  "  Let  us  now  proceed  to  Mr.  W.  's  asser- 
tions on  sinless  perfection." 

As  I  observed  before,  I  am  not  now  to  dispute  Whether  they  are 
right  or  wrong  1  I  keep,  therefore,  to  that  single  point.  Do  I  herein 
contradict  myself,  or  not  1 

When  I  said,  '  If  some  of  our  hymns  contradict  others,'  I  did  not 


52(> 

allow,  they  do.  I  meant  only,  if  it  were  so,  this  would  not  prov^j 
that  I  contradict  myself.  "  But  still  it  proves,  the  people  must 
sing  contradiction-,j"     Observe ;  that  is.  If 

In  your  account  of  perfection,  blot  out  jVb  wandering  thoughts. 
None  in  the  body  are  exempt  from  these.  This  we  have  declared 
over  and  over ;  particularly  in  the  sermon  written  upon  that  subject. 

If  in  the  sermon  on  Eph,  ii.  8,  (not  xi.  5.  as  your  blunderer  prints  it,) 
the  words  which  I  had  struck  out  in  the  preceding  edition,  are  in- 
serted again,  what  will  this  prove  ?  Only  that  the  printer,  in  my  ab- 
sence, printed,  not  from  the  last,  but  from  an  uncorrected  copy. 
However,  you  are  hereby  excused  from  unfairness,  as  to  that  quota- 
tion. But  what  excuse  have  you  in  the  other  instance,  with  regard 
to  Enoch  and  Elijah  1  On  which  I  asked,  '  Why  is  Mr.  Hill  so 
careful  to  name  the  first  edition  ?  Because  in  the  second  the  mistake 
is  corrected.  Did  he  know  this  1  And  could  he  avail  himself  of  a 
mistake  which  he  knew  was  removed  before  he  wrote  V  (Rem.  p.  29.) 

It  is  now  plain  he  could  !  Nay,  instead  of  owning  his  unfairness, 
he  endeavours  to  turn  the  blame  upon  me  !  "  You  are  as  inconsist- 
ent in  your  censures  as  in  your  doctrines :  you  blame  me  for  quoting 
the  last  edition  of  your  sermon  ;  whereas  you  call  me  to  account  for 
quoting  the^rsf  edition  of  your  notes,  concerning  Enoch  and  Elijah  : 
each  of  whom  you  have  proved,  by  a  peculiar  rule  of  Foundry-Logic, 
to  be  both  in  heaven  and  out  of  heaven."  So  without  any  remorse, 
nay,  being  so  totally  unconcerned  as  even  to  break  jests  on  the  oc- 
casion, you  again  '  avail  yourself  of  a  mistake  which  you  knew  was 
removed  before  you  wrote  !' 

45.  But  Mr.  VV.  "  hath  both  struck  out  some  words,  and  "pwf  in 
others,  into  the  sermon." — This  is  a  common  complaint  with  Mr. 
Hill ;  on  which  therefore  it  is  needful  to  explain. 

I  generally  abridge  what  I  answer ;  which  cannot  be  done  without 
striking  out  all  unessential  words.  And  I  generally  put  in  to  quota- 
tions from  my  own  writings,  such  words  as  I  judge  will  prevent 
mistakes. 

Now  to  the  contradictions. 

*  If  we  say  we  have  no  sin  now  remaining^  (I  mean,  after  we  are 
justified,)  we  deceive  ourselves.' 

I  believe  this :  and  yet  I  believe 

*  Sin  shall  not  always  in  our  flesh  remain  /' 

Again,  '  Many  infirmities  do  remain.' 

This  I  believe :  and  !  believe  also 

'  He  that  is  born  of  God,  (and  keepeth  himself,  1  John  v.  18,)  sin- 
neth  not  by  infirmities,  whether  in  act,  word,  or  thought.' 

1  believe,  likewise,  that  in  those  perfected  in  love, 

'  No  wrinkle  of  infirmity, 
No  .spot  of  sin  remains.' 

My  brother,  at  the  bottom  of  the  page,  expressly  says,  *  No  sinful 
infirmity.'     So  whether  this  be  scriptural  or  not,  here  is  no  contra- 
diction. 
I  have  spoken  so  largely  already  eoneerning  sins  of  surprise  and 


rARRAGO  DOUBLE-DISTILLED.  52J 

Infirmityy  that  it  is  quite  needless  to  add  any  more.     I  need  only  refev 
to  the  Remarks^  at  the  34th  and  following  pages. 

46.  But  to  go  on. 

'  I  wrestle  not  now.' 
This  is  an  expression  of  my  brother's,  which  I  do  not  subscribe  fo^ 

'  We  wrestle  not  with  flesh  and  blood.' 

"This  he  allows  to  be  his  own."  (p.  31.) 

Indeed  I  do  not :  although  it  is  true,  « the  perpetual  war  which  I 
speak  of  in  the  note  on  Eph.  vi.  13,  is  a  war  with  principalities  and 
powersy  but  not  withjlesh  and  blood."*  **  But  either  way  Mr.  John  is 
stuck  fast  in  the  mire.  For  in  his  Remarks  he  contradicts  his  bro- 
ther :  in  his  Annotations  he  contradicts  himself :  and  in  his  Hymn  he 
contradicts  both  his  brother  and  himself" 

Mr.  John  is  not  quite  stuck  fast  yet :  for  this  is  a  mistake  from 
beginning  to  end.  1,  I  do  not  contradict  my  brother  in  my  Remarks. 
In  saying,  '  I  do  not  subscribe  to  that  expression,'  I  mean,  1  do  not 
make  it  my  own  ;  I  do  not  undertake  to  defend  it.  Yet  neither  do  I 
enter  the  lists  against  it :  it  is  capable  of  a  sound  meaning.  2.  I  do 
not  contradict  myself  in  the  note  ;  let  him  prove  it  that  can.  3.  I 
contradict  nobody  in  the  hymn;  for  it  is  not  mine. 

Again.  '  I  never  said,  While  one  evil  thought  can  rise,  I  am  not 
born  again.  My  brother  said  so  once  :  but  he  took  the  words  in  too 
high  a  sense.'  I  add,  and  in  a  s^se  not  warrantable  by  the  Bible. 
And  yet  I  believe ,  that  « real  Christians,  I  mean  those  perfected  in 
love,  are  freed  from  evil  or  sinful  thoughts." 

"  But  is  not  a  babe  in  Christ,  born  again  ?  Is  he  not  a  real  -Chris- 
lian  .<"'  He  is  doubtless  born  again  ;  and  in  some  sense  he  is  a  real 
Christian  :  but  not  in  the  sense  above  defined. 

47.  We  come  now  to  the  additional  contradictions  which  Mr.  Hill 
undertakes  to  find  in  my  writings.  They  are  already  dwindled  into 
one  :  and  I  hope  to  show  quickly,  this  one  is  none  at  all. — It  stands 
thus. 

'  Most  express  are  the  words  of  St.  John,  We  know  that  whosoever  is 
born  of  God,  sinneth  not.  Indeed  it  is  said,  this  means  only,  he  doth 
not  commit  sin  wilfully  or  habitually.'  (Observe.  I  do  not  deny 
the  text  to  mean  this  ;  But  1  deny  that  it  means  this  only.) 

As  a  contradiction  to  this,  Mr.  Hill  places  these  words  in  the  op- 
posite column. 

'The  apostle  John  declares,  whosoever  is  born  of  God  sinneth 
not,  1.  By  any  habitual  sin;  nor,  2.  By  any  Hviljul  sin.'  True  ;  but 
»lo  I  say,  the  apostle  means  this  only?  Otherwise  here  is  no  contradic- 
tion. So  although  you  have  got  the  gallows  ready,  you  have  not  turn- 
ed off  old  Mordecai  yet.  As  you  so  frequently  give  me  that  appella- 
tion, I,  for  once,  accept  of  your  favour. 

48.  "  Before  I  quit  this  subject"  (of  perfection,)  "I  cannot  help 
expressing  my  astonishment,  that  Mr.  W.  should  deny  that  his  tenets 
on  that  point  exactly  harmonize  with  those  of  the  popish  church  ; 
since  all  the  decrees  and  books  that  have  been  published  by  the  JRo- 
man  clergy,  prove  this  matter  beyond  a  doubt." 


628  SOME   REMARKS   ON  MR.  HILl's 

I  believe,  you  have  been  told  so.  But  you  should  not  assert  It, 
unless  from  personal  knowledge.  "  Alexander  Ross  says  so."  What 
is  Alexander  Ross  ?  See  with  your  own  eyes.  "  Mr.  Hervey  too 
gives  an  account  of  Lindenus  and  Andradius."  Second-hand  evi- 
dence still.  Have  you  seen  them  yourself?  Otherwise  you  ought 
not  to  allow  their  testimony.  "  As  to  that  most  excellent  and  evan- 
gelical work,"  as  you  term  it,  the  eleven  letters  ascribed  to  Mr.  Her- 
vey, Mr.  Sellon  has  abundantly  shown,  that  they  are  most  excellently 
virulent,  scurrilous,  and  abusive ;  and  full  as  far  from  the  evangelic 
spirit,  as  the  Koran  of  Mahomet. 

"  But  Bishop  Cowper" — I  object  to  him,  beside  his  being  a  /lof, 
hitter  Calvinist,  that  he  is  a  dull,  heavy,  shallow  writer.  And  let  him 
be  what  he  may,  all  you  cite  from  him  is  second-hand  authority. — 
*'  Nay,  I  refer  to  the  bishop's  own  words.  But  still  you  have  only 
the  words  at  second-hand.  In  order  to  know  the  tenets  of  the  church 
of  Rome,  you  must  read  the  Romish  authors  themselves.  Nay,  it 
does  not  suffice  to  read  their  own  private  authors.  They  will  disown 
tiny  thing  we  charge  them  with,  unless  we  can  prove  it,  by  recurring 
to  their  public  and  authentic  records.  Such  are  the  Canones  et 
Deer  eta  Concilii  Tridentini.  Such  the  Catechisms  ad  Parochos.  Till 
j^ou  have  read  these  at  least,  you  should  never  undertake  to  deter- 
mine what  is,  or  what  is  not  popery. 

49.  "  But  as  1  am  now  on  the  subject  of  popery,  I  must  make  a 
few  animadversions  on  what  Mr.  W,  affirms,  '  I  always  thought  the 
tenets  of  the  church  of  Rome,  were  nearer  by  half  to  Mr.  Hill's  tenets, 
than  to-Mr.  W.'s.'  "  (p.  33.)  Nay,  give  the  honour  of  this  to  its  true 
author ;  Mr.  H.  goes  to  consult  a  Popish  friar  at  Paris,  a  Benedic- 
tine Monk,  one  Father  Walsh,  concerning  the  Minutes  of  the  Con- 
ference. Father  W.  (Mr.  H.  says  ;  and  1  see  no  reason  to  scruple 
bis  authority  here  ;)  assures  him,  that  the  Minutes  contain  false  doc- 
trine :  and  that  the  tenets  of  the  church  of  Rome  are  nearer  by  hall 
to  his  (Mr.  Hill's)  tenets  than  they  are  to  Mr.  W.'s.  (So  Mr.  Hill 
himself  informs  the  world,  in  the  Paris  Conversation  of  famous  me- 
mory :  which  1  really  think,  he  would  never  have  published,  unless 
as  the  vulgar  say,  the  Devil  had  owed  him  a  shame.)  I  add,  '  Truly 
I  always  thought  so.'  But  I  am  the  more  confirmed  therein,  by  the 
authority  of  so  competent  a  judge:  especially  when  his  judgment  is 
publicly  delivered  by  so  unexceptionable  a  witness. 

50.  Nay,  but  "  you  know  the  principles  of  the  Pope  and  of  John 
Calvin,  are  quite  opposite  to  each  other."  I  do  not  know,  that  they 
are  opposite  at  all  in  this  point.  Many  Popes  have  been  either  Do- 
minicans or  Benedictines.  And  many  of  the  Benedictines,  with  all 
the  Dominicans,  are  as  firm  Predestinarians  as  Calvin  himself 
Whether  the  present  Pope  is  a  Dominican,  I  cannottcU  :  If  he  is,  he 
is  far  nearer  your  tenets  than  mine. 

Let  us  make  the  trial  with  regard  to  your  ten  propositions. 

1.  '^Yo\x  deny  election.  i      So  does  the  Pope  of  Rome." 

I  know  not  that.     Probably  he 
holds  it. 


i?AIlRAGO   DOrBLE'DISTIlLED. 


520 


"  You  deny  perseverance. 
You  deny  imputed  righteous- 


So  does  the  Pope  of  Rome." 
That  is  much  to  be  doubted. 

3.  You  deny  imputed  righteous-  Perhaps  the  Pope  of  Rome 
uess.  does  :  but  I  assert  it  continually. 

4.  "You  hold/ree-tci//.  So  does  the  Pope  of  Rome."  No,  not 
as  I  do,  (unless  he  is  a  Predestinarian  :  otherwise)  he  ascribes  it  to 
nature,  I  to  grace. 


5.  "  You  hold,  that  works  are 
a  condition  of  justification. 
.  6.  "  You  hold  a  tico-Jold  justi- 
fication, one  now,  another  at  the 
last  day. 

7.  "  You  hold  the  doctrine  of 
merit. 

S.  "You  hold  sinless  perfection. 


If  you  mean  good  works,  I  do 
not. 

So  does  the  Pope  of  Rome." 
And  so  do  all  Protestants,  if  they 
believe  the  Bible. 

I  do  not.  Neither  does  the 
Pope,  if  father  Walsh  says  true. 

So  does  the  Pope."  I  deny 
that.     How  do  you  prove  it  1 

I  hold  no  such  thing.  And  you 
know  it  well. 

Not  so  ;  I  abhor  the  distinction. 


9.  "  You  hold,  that  sins  are  only 
injirmities. 

10.  "  You  distinguish  between 
venial  and  mortal  sins." 

Now  let  every  man  of  understanding  judge,  whether  father  Walsli 
did  not  speak  the  very  truth  1 

51.  "  This  pamphlet  was  finished,  when  I  wa§  told,  that  Mr.  W, 
had  lately  a  very  remarkable  dream,  which  awakened  him  out  of  a 
sound  sleep.  This  dream  he  communicated  to  his  society.  It  was 
in  substance  as  follows.  A  big,  rough  man  came  to  him,  and  gave 
him  a  violent  blow  on  the  arm  with  aredhot  iron."  (p.  51.) 

"  Now  the  interpretation  thereof  I  conceive  to  be  as  folloAvs  : 

1.  "  The  big,  rough  man,  is  Mr.  Hill  ; 

2.  "  The  bar  of  iron  (redhot)  is  Logica  Wesleiensis  : 

3.  "  The  blow  denotes  the  shock  which  Mr.  John  will  receive  by 
the  said  pamphlet : 

4.  "  His  being  awakened  out  of  a  sound  sleep,  signifies  there  is  yet 
hope,  that  he  will  some  time  or  other  come  to  the  right  use  of  his 
spiritual  faculties." 

Pretty  and  well  devised  !  And  though  it  is  true  I  never  had  any 
such  dream  since  I  was  born,  yet  I  am  obliged  to  the  inventor  of  it ; 
and  that  on  many  accounts. 

1  am  obliged  to  him,  1 .  For  sending  against  me  only  a  big,  rough 
man  :  it  might  have  been  a  lion,  or  a  bear  :  2.  For  directing  the  bar 
o/iron  only  to  my  arm  ;  it  might  have  been,  my  poor  scull :  3.  For 
letting  the  big  man  give  me  only  one  blow  ;  had  it  been  repeated,  I 
had  been  slain  outright :  and,  4.  For  hoping  I  shall,  some  time  or 
other,  come  to  the  right  use  of  my  spiritual  faculties. 

52.  Perhaps  Mr.  Hill  may  expect,  that  I  should  make  hhn  sonfa 
veturn  for  the  favour  of  his  heroic  poem.     But 


Vob.  9.— X  X 


"  Certes  I  have,  for  many  days 
.Sent  mj  poetic  herd  to  graze* 


530  MR.  hill's  fahrago  double-distilled. 

And  had  I  not,  I  should  have  been  utterly  unable  to  present  him  witls 
a  parallel.  Yet  upon  reflection,  I  believe  I  can,  although  1  own,  it 
is  rather  of  the  lyric,  than  the  heroic  kind.  And  because  possibly 
he  may  be  inclined  to  write  notes  on  this  too,  I  will  tell  him  the  ori- 
gin of  it.  One  Sunday,  immediately  after  sermon,  my  father's  clerk 
said,  with  an  audible  voice,  "  Let  us  sing  to  the  praise  and  glory 
of  God,  a  hymn  of  mine  own  composing."  It  was  short  and  sweet, 
and  ran  thus : 

"  King  William  is  come  home,  come  home  : 
King  William  home  is  come  ! 
Therefore  let  us  together  sing 
The  hymn  that's  call'd  Te  D'um  !" 

53.  Before  I  conclude,  I  beg  leave,  in  my  turn,  to  give  you  a  few 
advices. 

And,  1.  Be  calm.  Do  not  venture  into  the  field  again,  till  you  are 
master  of  your  temper.  You  know,  the  wrath  of  man  worketh  not 
the  righteousness,  neither  promotes  the  truth,  of  God. 

2.  Be  good-natured.  Passion  is  not  commendable  ;  but  ill-nature 
still  less.  Even  irrational  anger  is  more  excusable  than  bitterness, 
less  offensive  to  God  and  man. 

3.  Be  courteous.  Show  good  manners  as  well  as  good-nature  to 
your  opponent  of  whatever  kind.  "  But  he  is  rude."  You  need 
not  be  so  too.     If  you  regard  not  him,  "  Reverence  yourself." 

Absolutely  contrary  to  this,  is  the  crying  out  at  every  turn, 
"  Quirk,  sophistry,  evasion  !"  In  controversy  these  exclamations 
go  for  nothing.     This  is  neither  better  nor  worse  than  calling  names. 

4.  Be  merciful.  When  you  have  gained  an  advantage  over  your 
opponent,  do  not  press  it  to  the  uttermost.  Remember  the  honest 
Quaker's  advice  to  his  friend  a  few  years  ago,  "  Art  thou  not  content 
to  lay  John  Wesley  upon  his  back,  but  thou  wilt  tread  his  guts  out  ]" 

5.  In  writing,  do  not  consider  yourself  as  a  man  of  fortune,  or 
take  any  liberty  with  others  on  that  account.  These  distinctions 
weigh  little  more  in  the  literary  world,  than  in  the  world  of  spirits. 
Men  of  sense  simply  consider  what  is  written :  not  whether  the 
writer  be  a  lord  or  a  cobbler  ? 

Lastly,  Remember,  For  every  idle  word  men  shall  speak,  they  shall 
give  an  account  in  the  day  of  judgment.  Remember,  by  thy  u'ords 
shall  thou  be  justified ;  or  by  thy  words  shalt  Ihou  be  condemned  I 

Bristol,  March  14, 1773. 


[     531     ] 


A  LETTER 


TO 


A  ROMAN  CATHOLIC. 


1.  YOU  have  heard  ten  thousand  stories  of  us  who  are  commonly 
called  Protestants,  of  which,  if  you  believe  only  one  in  a  thousand, 
you  must  think  very  hardly  of  us.  But  this  is  quite  contrary  to  our 
Lord's  rule,  Judge  not,  that  ye  be  not  judged ;  and  has  many  ill  con- 
sequences, particularly  this.  It  inclines  us  to  think  as  hardly  of  you. 
Hence  we  are  on  both  sides  less  willing  to  help  one  another,  and 
more  ready  to  hurt  each  other.  Hence  brotherly  love  is  utterly  de- 
stroyed :  and  each  side  looking  on  the  other  as  monsters,  gives  way 
to  anger,  hatred,  malice,  to  every  unkind  affection,  which  have  fre- 
quently broke  out  in  such  inhuman  barbarities,  as  are  scarce  named 
among  the  Heathens. 

2.  Now  can  nothing  be  done,  even  allowing  us  on  both  sides  to 
retain  our  own  opinions,  for  the  softening  our  hearts  towards  each 
other,  the  giving  a  check  to  this  flood  of  unkindness,  and  restoring 
at  least  some  small  degree  of  love  among  our  neighbours  and  coun- 
trymen 1  Do  not  you  wish  for  this  1  Are  you  not  fully  convinced, 
that  malice,  hatred,  revenge,  bitterness,  whether  in  us  or  in  you,  in 
our  hearts  or  yours,  are  an  abomination  to  the  Lord  1  Be  our  opi- 
nions right  or  be  they  wrong,  these  tempers  are  undeniably  wrong. 
They  are  the  broad  road  that  leads  to  destruction,  to  the  nethermost 
liell. 

3.  I  do  not  suppose  all  the  bitterness  is  on  your  side.  I  know 
there  is  too  much  on  our  side  also.  So  much  that  I  fear  many  Pro- 
testants (so  called)  will  be  angry  at  me  too,  for  writing  to  you  in  this 
manner  ;  and  will  say,  "  It  is  showing  you  too  much  favour ;  you 
deserve  no  such  treatment  at  our  hands." 

4.  But  I  think  you  do.  I  think  you  deserve  the  tenderest  regard 
I  can  show,  were  it  only  because  the  same  God  hath  raised  you  and 
me  from  the  dust  of  the  earth,  and  has  made  us  both  capable  of 
loving  and  enjoying  him  to  eternity  :  were  it  only  because  the  Son 
of  God  has  bought  you  and  me  with  his  own  blood.  How  much 
more,  if  you  are  a  person  fearing  God,  (as  without  question  many  of 
you  are,)  and  studying  to  have  a  conscience  void  of  offence  towards 
God  and  towards  man  ? 

5.  I  shall  therefore  endeavour,  as  mildly  and  inoffensively  as  I 
can,  to  remove  in  some  measure  the  ground  of  your  unkindness,  by 
plainly  declaring  what  our  belief,  and  what  our  practice  are  :  that 


532  A   LETTER  TO   A   ROJIAN    CATHGXIC, 

5*ou  may  sec,  we  are  not  altogether  such  monsters  as  perhaps  yot? 
imagined  us  to  be. 

A  true  Protestant  may  express  his  belief  in  these,  or  the  like 
words. 

6.  As  I  am  assured,  that  there  is  an  infinite  and  independent 
Being,  and  that  it  is  impossible  there  should  be  more  than  One ;  so 
I  believe,  that  this  One  God  is  the  Father  of  all  things,  especially  of 
angels  and  men  i  That  he  is,  in  a  peculiar  manner,  the  Father  of 
those  whom  he  regenerates  by  his  Spirit,  whom  he  adopts  in  his  Son, 
as  co-heirs  with  him,  and  crowns  with  an  eternal  inheritance  :  but 
in  a  still  higher  sense,  the  Father  of  his  only  Son,  whom  he  hath 
begotten  from  eternity. 

I  believe  this  Father  of  All,  not  only  to  be  able  to  do  whatsoevei 
pleaseth  him,  but  also  to  have  an  eternal  right  of  making  what,  and 
v/hen,  and  how  he  pleaseth,  and  of  possessing  and  disposing  of  all 
that  he  has  made  :  and  that  he  of  his  own  goodness  created  heaven 
and  earth,  and  all  that  is  therein. 

7.  I  believe  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  the  Saviour  of  the  world, 
the  Messiah  so  long  foretold  :  That  being  anointed  with,  the  Holy 
Ghost,  he  was  a  Prophet,  revealing  to  us  the  whole  will  of  God  : 
That  he  was  a  Priest,  who  gave  himself  a  sacrifice  for  sin,  and  stiM 
makes  intercession  for  transgressors  :  That  he  is  a  King,  who  ha? 
power  in  heaven  and  in  earth,  and  will  reign  till  he  has  subdued  all 
things  to  himself. 

I  believe,  he  is  the  proper,  natural  Son  of  God,  God  of  God,  very 
God  of  very  God :  And  that  he  is  the  Lord  of  All,  having  absolute, 
supreme,  universal  dominion  over  all  things  :  but  more  peculiarly 
our  Lord,  who  believe  in  him,  both  by  conquest,  purchase,  and  vo- 
luntary obligation. 

I  believe,  tliat  he  was  made  man,  joining  the  human  nature  with 
the  divine  in  one  person  :  being  conceived  by  the  singular  operation 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  born  of  the  blessed  Virgin  Mary,  who  as 
well  after  as  before  she  brought  "him  forth,  continued  a  pure  and  un- 
spotted Virgin. 

I  believe,  he  sulTered  inexpressible  pains  both  of  body  and  soull 
and  at  last  death,  even  the  death  of  the  cross,  at  the  time  that  Pon- 
tius Pilate  governed  Judea,  under  the  Roman  emperor :  that  his  body 
was  then  laid  in  the  grave,  and  his  soul  went  to  the  place  of  sepa- 
rate spirits  :  That  the  third  day  he  rose  again  from  the  dead  :  That 
he  ascended  into  heaven  ;  where  he  remains  in  the  midst  of  the 
throne  of  God,  in  the  highest  power  and  glory,  as  Mediator  till  the 
end  of  the  world,  as  God  to  all  eternity:  That  in  the  end,  he  will 
come  down  from  heaven,  to  judge  every  man  according  to  his  works; 
both  those  who  shall  be  then  alive,  and  all  who  have  died  before  that 
day. 

8.  I  believe  the  Infinite  and  Eternal  Spirit  of  God,  equal  with  the 
Father  and  the  Son,  to  be  not  only  perfectly  holy  in  himself,  but  the 
immediate  cause  of  all  holiness  in  us  ;  enlightening  our  understand- 
ings, rectifying  our  wills  and  affections,  renewing  our  natures,  uniting 


A    LETTER    TO   A   ROMAS  CATUOLIC.  535 

our  persous  to  Christ,  assuring  us  of  the  adoption  of  sons,  leading 
'  us  in  our  actions,  purifying  and  sanctifying  our  souls  and  bodies,  to 
a  full  and  eternal  enjoyment  of  God. 

9.  I  believe,  that  Christ  and  his  apostles  gathered  unto  himself  a 
church,  to  which  he  has  continually  added  such  as  shall  be  saved : 
That  this  Catholic,  that  is,  Universal  Church,  extending  to  all  na« 
tions  and  all  ages,  is  holy  in  all  its  members,  who  have  fellowship  with 
God  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost :  That  they  have  fellowship 
with  the  holy  angels,  who  constantly  minister  to  these  heirs  of  sal- 
vation :  And  with  all  the  living  members  of  Christ  on  earth,  as  well 
as  all  who  are  departed  in  his  faith  and  fear. 

1 0.  I  believe  God  forgives  all  the  sins  of  them  that  truly  repent 
and  unfeignedly  believe  his  holy  gospel ;  and  that  at  the  last  day,  all 
men  shall  rise  again,  every  one  with  his  own  body. 

I  believe,  that  as  the  unjust  shall  after  their  resurrection  be  tor- 
mented in  hell  for  ever,  so  the  just  shall  enjoy  inconceivable  happi- 
ness in  the  presence  of  God  to  all  eternity. 

1 1 .  Now,  is  there  any  thing  wrong  in  this  1  Is  there  any  one: 
point  which  you  do  not  believe  as  well  as  we  *? 

But  you  think  we  ought  to  believe  more.  We  will  not  now  enter 
Into  the  dispute.  Only  let  me  ask,  If  a  man  sincerely  believes  thus 
much,  and  practises  accordingly,  can  any  one  possibly  persuade  you 
to  think,  that  such  a  man  shall  perish  everlastingly  ? 

"  But  does  he  practise  accordingly  1"  If  he  does  not,  we  grant 
all  his  faith  will  not  save  him.  And  this  leads  me  to  show  you  in  few 
and  plain  words,  what  the  practice  of  a  true  Protestant  is. 

I  say,  a  true  Protestant :  for  I  disclaim  all  common  swearers, 
sabbath-breakers,  drunkards  ;  all  whoremongers,  liars,  cheats,  ex- 
tortioners ;  in  a  word,  all  that  live  in  open  sin.  These  are  no  Pro- 
testants :  they  are  no  Christians  at  all.  Give  them  their  own  name  : 
they  are  open  Heathens.  They  are  the  curse  of  the  nation,  the 
bane  of  society,  the  shame  of  mankind,  the  scum  of  the  earth. 

13.  A  true  Protestant  believes  in  God,  has  a  full  confidence  in 
his  mercy,  fears  him  with  a  filial  fear,  and  loves  him  with  all  his  soul. 
He  worships  God  in  spirit  and  in  truth,  in  every  thing  gives  him 
thanks :  calls  upon  him  with  his  heart  as  well  as  his  lips,  at  all  times 
and  in  all  places ;  honours  his  holy  name  and  his  word,  and  serves 
him  truly  all  the  days  of  his  life. 

Now,  do  not  you  yourself  approve  of  this  ?  Is  there  any  one 
point  you  can  condemn?  Do  not  you  practise,  as  well  as  approve 
of  \t1  Can  you  ever  be  happy  if  you  do  not?  Can  you  ever  ex- 
pect true  peace  in  this,  or  glory  in  the  world  to  come,  if  you  do  not 
believe  in  God  through  Christ,  if  you  do  not  thus  fear  and  love 
God  ?  My  dear  friend,  consider,  I  am  not  persuading  you  to  leave 
or  change  your  religion,  but  to  follow  after  that  fear  and  love  of  God, 
without  which  all  religion  is  vain.  I  say  not  a  word  to  you  about 
your  opinions  or  outward  manner  of  worship.  But  I  say  all  worship 
is  an  abomination  to  the  Lord,  unless  you  worship  him  in  spirit  and 
•n  truth,  with  your  heart  as  well  as  your  lips,  with  your  spirit  and 


534  A  LETTER  TO  A  ROMAN  CATHOLIC. 

with  your  understanding  also.  Be  your  form  of  worship  what  it 
will,  but  in  every  thing  give  him  thanks ;  else  it  is  all  hut  lost  labour. 
Use  whatever  outward  observances  you  please,  but  put  your  whole 
trust  in  him  :  but  honour  his  holy  name  and  his  word,  and  serve  him 
truly  all  the  days  of  your  life. 

14.  Again.  A  true  Protestant  loves  his  neighbour,  that  is,  every 
man,  friend  or  enemy,  good  or  bad,  as  himself,  as  he  loves  his  own 
soul,  as  Christ  loved  us.  And  as  Christ  laid  down  his  life  for  us,  so 
is  he  ready  to  lay  down  his  life  for  his  brethren.  He  shows  this  love 
by  doing  to  all  men  in  all  points  as  he  would  they  should  do  unto  him. 
He  loves,  honours,  and  obeys  his  father  and  mother,  and  helps  them 
to  the  uttermost  of  his  power.  He  honours  and  obeys  the  king,  and 
all  that  are  put  in  authority  under  him.  He  cheerfully  submits  to 
all  his  governors,  teachers,  spiritual  pastors  and  masters.  He  be- 
haves lowly  and  reverently  to  all  his  betters.  He  hurts  no  body  by 
word  or  deed.  He  is  true  and  just  in  all  his  dealings.  He  bears  no 
malice  or  hatred  in  his  heart.  He  abstains  from  all  evil  speaking, 
lying,  and  slandering,  neither  is  guile  found  in  his  mouth.  Knowing 
his  body  to  be  the  temple  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  he  keeps  it  in  sobriety, 
temperance,  and  chastity.  He  does  not  desire  other  men's  goods, 
but  is  content  with  that  he  hath,  labours  to  get  his  own  living,  and  to 
do  the  whole  will  of  God  in  that  state  of  life  unto  which  it  has 
pleased  God  to  call  him. 

1 5.  Have  you  any  thing  to  reprove  in  this  1  Are  you  not  herein 
even  as  he  ]  If  not,  (tell  the  truth,)  are  you  not  condemned,  both 
by  God  and  your  own  conscience  1  Can  you  fall  short  of  any  one 
point  hereof,  without  falling  short  of  being  a  Christian  1 

Come,  my  brother,  and  let  us  reason  together.  Are  you  right  if 
you  only  love  your  friend,  and  hate  your  enemy  1  Do  not  even  the 
Heathens  and  Publicans  so  1  You  are  called  to  love  your  enemies, 
to  bless  them  that  curse  you,  and  to  pray  for  them  that  despitefully 
use  you  and  persecute  you.  But  are  you  not  disobedient  to  the  hea- 
venly calling  1  Does  your  tender  love  to  all  men,  not  only  the  good, 
but  also  the  evil  and  unthankful,  approve  you  the  child  of  your  Fa- 
ther which  is  in  heaven  1  Otherwise  whatever  you  believe,  and  what- 
ever you  practise,  you  are  of  your  father  the  Devil.  Are  you  ready 
to  lay  down  your  life  for  your  brethren  1  And  do  you  do  unto  all 
as  you  would  they  should  do  unto  you?  If  not,  do  not  deceive 
your  own  soul.  You  are  but  a  Heathen  still.  Do  you  love,  honour, 
and  obey  your  father  and  mother,  and  help  them  to  the  utmost  of 
your  power  ?  Do  you  honour  and  obey  all  in  authority  1  All  your 
governors,  spiritual  pastors  and  masters  1  Do  you  behave  yourself 
lowly  and  reverently  to  all  your  betters  1  Do  you  hurt  no  body  by 
word  or  deed  1  Are  you  true  and  just  in  all  your  dealings  1  Do  you 
take  care  to  pay  whatever  you  owe?  Do  you  feel  no  malice,  or  envy, 
or  revenge,  no  hatred  or  bitterness  to  any  man  1  If  you  do,  it  is 
plain,  you  are  not  of  God ;  for  all  these  are  the  tempers  of  the 
Devil.  Do  you  speak  the  truth  from  your  heart  to  all  men,  and  that 
in  tenderness  and  love  1  Are  you  an  Israelite  indeedj  in  whom  is  no 


A  LETTER  TO  A  KOMAN  CATHOLIC.  535 

guile  1  Do  you  keep  your  body  in  sobriety,  temperance,  and  chas- 
tity, as  knowing  it  is  the  temple  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  that  if  any 
man  defile  the  temple  of  God,  him  will  God  destroy  1  Have  you 
learned  in  every  state  wherein  you  are,  therewith  to  be  content  1 
Do  you  labour  to  get  your  own  living,  abhorring  idleness  as  you  ab- 
hor hell-fire  ?  The  Devil  tempts  other  men  ;  but  an  idle  man  tempts 
the  Devil.  An  idle  man's  brain  is  the  Devil's  shop,  where  he  is 
continually  working  mischief.  Are  you  not  slothful  in  business  ? 
Whatever  your  hand  finds  to  do,  do  you  do  it  with  your  might  1 
And  do  you  do  all  as  unto  the  Lord,  as  a  sacrifice  unto  God,  ac- 
ceptable in  Christ  Jesus  ? 

This,  and  this  alone,  is  the  old  religion.  This  is  true,  primitive 
Christianity.  O  when  shall  it  spread  over  all  the  earth  1  When  shall 
it  be  found  both  in  us  and  you  1  Without  waiting  for  others,  let  each 
of  us,  by  the  grace  of  God,  amend  one. 

1 6.  Are  we  not  thus  far  agreed  1  Let  us  thank  God  for  this,  and 
receive  it  as  a  fresh  token  of  his  love.  But  if  God  still  loveth  us, 
we  ought  also  to  love  one  another.  We  ought,  without  this  endless 
jangling  about  opinions,  to  provoke  one  another  to  love  and  to  good 
works.  Let  the  points  wherein  we  differ  stand  aside;  here  are 
enough  wherein  we  agree,  enough  to  be  the  ground  of  every  Chris- 
tian temper,  and  of  every  Christian  action. 

O  brethren,  let  us  not  still  fall  out  by  the  way.  I  hope  to  see  ijoii 
in  heaven.  And  if  I  practise  the  religion  above  described,  you  dare 
not  say  I  shall  go  to  hell.  You  cannot  think  so.  None  can  per- 
suade you  to  it.  Your  own  conscience  tells  you  the  contrary.  Then 
if  we  cannot  as  yet  think  alike  in  all  things,  at  least  we  may  love 
alike.  Herein  we  cannot  possibly  do  amiss.  For  of  one  point 
none  can  doubt  a  moment,  God  is  love  ;  and  he  that  dwelleth  in 
love,  dwelleth  in  God,  and  God  in  him. 

17.  In  the  name  then,  and  in  the  strength  of  God,  let  us  resolve, 
first,  not  to  hurt  one  another  :  to  do  nothing  unkind  or  unfriendly  to 
each  other,  nothing  which  we  would  not  have  done  to  ourselves. 
Rather  let  us  endeavour  after  every  instance  of  a  kind,  friendly,  and 
Christian  behaviour  towards  each  other. 

Let  us  resolve,  secondly,  God  being  our  helper,  to  speak  nothing 
harsh  or  unkind  of  each  other.  The  sure  way  to  avoid  this,  is  to 
say  all  the  good  we  can,  both  of  and  to  one  another  :  in  all  our  con- 
versation, either  with,  or  concerning  each  other,  to  use  only  the  lan- 
guage of  love :  to  speak  with  all  softness  and  tenderness  ;  with  the 
most  endearing  expressions,  which  is  consistent  with  truth  and  sin* 
cerity. 

Let  us,  thirdly,  resolve  to  harbour  no  unkind  thought,  no  uu- 
friendly  temper  towards  each  other.  Let  us  lay  the  axe  to  the  root 
of  the  tree  ;  let  us  examine  all  that  rises  in  our  hearts,  and  suffer  no 
disposition  there  which  is  contrary  to  tender  affection.  Then  shall 
we  easily  refrain  from  unkind  actions  and  words,  when  the  very  root 
of  bitterness  is  cut  up. 

Let  us,  fourthly,  endeavour  to  help  each  other  on  in  whatever  w6 


a36  A  LETTER  TO  A  KOMAN  CATHOLIC. 

are  agreed  leads  to  the  kingdom.  So  far  as  we  can,  let  us  alwayci 
tejoice  to  strengthen  each  other's  hands  in  God,  Above  all,  let  us 
each  take  heed  to  himself  (since  each  must  give  an  account  of  him- 
self to  God)  that  he  fall  not  short  of  the  religion  of  love  ;  that  he 
he  not  condemned  in  that  he  himself  approveth.  O  let  you  and  I 
(whatever  others  do,)  press  on  to  the  prize  of  our  high  calling  :  that 
being  justified  by  faith  we  may  have  peace  with  God  through  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ :  that  we  may  rejoice  in  God  through  Jesus  Christ, 
by  whom  we  have  received  the  atonement :  that  the  love  of  God, 
may  be  shed  abroad  in  our  hearts  by  the  Holy  Ghost  which  is  given 
unto  us.  Let  us  count  all  things  but  loss  for  the  excellency  of  the 
knowledge  of  Jesus  Chiist  our  Lord;  being  ready  for  him  to  suffer 
the  loss  of  all  things,  and  counting  them  but  dung,  that  we  may  win 
Christ. 

I  am,  your  affectionate  .servant,  for  Christ's  sake 

Dublin,  July  18,  1749. 


KN'D   OF   U'lIK    Mxrn    VOLrajE, 


